Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Just To Put The Record Straight
28 Answers
http://
Mr Farage came in for much criticism over his HIV remarks, but so did all those who agreed with him, along with the usual remarks homophobic, racist, xenophobia, alarmist etc.
Well it would appear that it is those who criticised who are in the minority,
/// 52 per cent thought Mr Farage was ‘right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money’ this compared with 37 per cent who picked: ‘Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean’, and 11 per cent did not know. ///
A YouGov poll
Mr Farage came in for much criticism over his HIV remarks, but so did all those who agreed with him, along with the usual remarks homophobic, racist, xenophobia, alarmist etc.
Well it would appear that it is those who criticised who are in the minority,
/// 52 per cent thought Mr Farage was ‘right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money’ this compared with 37 per cent who picked: ‘Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean’, and 11 per cent did not know. ///
A YouGov poll
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The narrative that Nigel Farage seemed to be implying when he said "...anybody can get on a plane from anywhere in the world, be HIV tested in London and receive antiretroviral drugs..." was that this was somehow deliberately done by the people coming here. Perhaps not in being deliberately infected (my idea of satire in suggesting that) -- but certainly they would have to know already that they had HIV in order to be exploiting the system. Given that much of the problem with HIV is lack of education, it seems rather more plausible to me that instead people are coming to this country for other reasons, and then subsequently it turns out that unbeknownst to them they had HIV.
Under such circumstances, I don't see what else the NHS can do. We can't deport people for being sick -- that risks spreading the disease further in that person's own country. We can't not treat them -- same risk here, never mind the ethical implications of leaving someone untreated because of their nationality. I don't see that requiring the person to pay for treatment works either, unless it's a particularly wealthy immigrant, because almost certainly they will not and so by default we're back to not treating them.
The only solutions, then, are either to treat such people whatever the cost to our country (which I estimate as somewhere in the region of £50 - £60 million); or to establish better border controls including mandatory health checks. Although the question in that second case would be what happens if it turns out that the would-be immigrant is HIV-positive. It's in everyone's interests to try and combat HIV wherever it's found, so turning such people away to countries without the support needed to treat HIV seems to undermine these efforts.
It's not an ideal situation. Unless you indeed weight a UK citizen's life above anyone else's, I don't see much that can be done about it other than grumble but carry on as we are anyway.
Under such circumstances, I don't see what else the NHS can do. We can't deport people for being sick -- that risks spreading the disease further in that person's own country. We can't not treat them -- same risk here, never mind the ethical implications of leaving someone untreated because of their nationality. I don't see that requiring the person to pay for treatment works either, unless it's a particularly wealthy immigrant, because almost certainly they will not and so by default we're back to not treating them.
The only solutions, then, are either to treat such people whatever the cost to our country (which I estimate as somewhere in the region of £50 - £60 million); or to establish better border controls including mandatory health checks. Although the question in that second case would be what happens if it turns out that the would-be immigrant is HIV-positive. It's in everyone's interests to try and combat HIV wherever it's found, so turning such people away to countries without the support needed to treat HIV seems to undermine these efforts.
It's not an ideal situation. Unless you indeed weight a UK citizen's life above anyone else's, I don't see much that can be done about it other than grumble but carry on as we are anyway.
Jim, //The narrative that Nigel Farage seemed to be implying when he said "...anybody can get on a plane from anywhere in the world, be HIV tested in London and receive antiretroviral drugs..." was that this was somehow deliberately done by the people coming here.//
But you’ve made the last bit up. That’s not what he said at all. Perhaps you should look at the real implication of what he said, fundamentally that the system is at fault and is open to abuse by people coming here from abroad – which it is.
But you’ve made the last bit up. That’s not what he said at all. Perhaps you should look at the real implication of what he said, fundamentally that the system is at fault and is open to abuse by people coming here from abroad – which it is.
"I don't see what else the NHS can do."
Well jim, they could start by trying what other nations do when foreigners turn up in their country needing medical treatment. Suggest they either pay for it or return whence they came. There is absolutely no way that expensive long term treatment would be provided free of charge to foreign nationals in any other country. Of course there would be a problem with illegal entrants but that aside there's no need for health checks at the airports.
There is simply no political will in the UK to tackle this problem. Mr Farage has chosen one disease to make his point. He would have done better to have illustrated the range of illnesses and conditions with which people are presenting themselves to healthcare establishments. In any case the scale of the problem is not the point (and I would suggest it is greater than we are led to believe). It's a matter of principle. UK taxpayers pay for a National Health Service, not an international version.
Well jim, they could start by trying what other nations do when foreigners turn up in their country needing medical treatment. Suggest they either pay for it or return whence they came. There is absolutely no way that expensive long term treatment would be provided free of charge to foreign nationals in any other country. Of course there would be a problem with illegal entrants but that aside there's no need for health checks at the airports.
There is simply no political will in the UK to tackle this problem. Mr Farage has chosen one disease to make his point. He would have done better to have illustrated the range of illnesses and conditions with which people are presenting themselves to healthcare establishments. In any case the scale of the problem is not the point (and I would suggest it is greater than we are led to believe). It's a matter of principle. UK taxpayers pay for a National Health Service, not an international version.
Jim, //He may not have said so, nor really meant this, but it's the clear implication of what he has said.//
You’re contradicting yourself. How can he not really mean something he didn’t say and yet imply something you imagine he said? That’s nonsense. As you said no one would contract such a disease deliberately but there’s no doubt that some do come here specifically and for a variety of reasons to take advantage of the NHS.
You’re contradicting yourself. How can he not really mean something he didn’t say and yet imply something you imagine he said? That’s nonsense. As you said no one would contract such a disease deliberately but there’s no doubt that some do come here specifically and for a variety of reasons to take advantage of the NHS.
From the article:
[i]Nigel Farage caused controversy at the televised leaders’ debate last week by attacking the high cost of giving anti-retroviral drugs to sufferers not born in Britain[i]
He went on to clarify, by changing his remark to 'foreign nationals', which is just as well, because what he said on the leaders' debate caused a massive dip in his appreciation rating, because those watching knew exactly what he was up to.
Disgraceful.
[i]Nigel Farage caused controversy at the televised leaders’ debate last week by attacking the high cost of giving anti-retroviral drugs to sufferers not born in Britain[i]
He went on to clarify, by changing his remark to 'foreign nationals', which is just as well, because what he said on the leaders' debate caused a massive dip in his appreciation rating, because those watching knew exactly what he was up to.
Disgraceful.
"Of course there would be a problem with illegal entrants but that aside there's no need for health checks at the airports. "
Half of the reason I proposed that, at least, was because people are always, with good reason, calling for tougher border control. It seemed to me that a mandatory health check could form a natural part of that, so I thought it a not unreasonable suggestion.
Naomi, perhaps I was giving Nigel Farage too much of the benefit of the doubt in my second post, then. I think it's entirely unfair to talk of "abuse" of the system in this context without at the same time either implying that foreign nationals were deliberately getting infected or chastising them for the entirely reasonable point that they are sick and want and need treatment for said sickness. Under such circumstances it seems harsh at the very least to blame such people for the situation they are in. The term abuse is uncalled for and, whether Farage meant it or not, leaves him open to the criticism I suggest. I suspect he probably did, really, but will find a way to cover himself. Either way, it was a poor choice of words.
As to NJ's point -- maybe other countries wouldn't be so quick to throw treatment at immigrant AIDS victims. Ultimately, this is short-sighted, though, because either you have an untreated AIDS victim in your own country (and so the disease is bound to spread), or you have such a person running around another country in which case it will spread there (and, inevitably, come back here). When it comes to disease in particular, we can't afford to be so national in whom we treat. Under those circumstances, the £50 million odd is probably money well spent if it helps to keep the spread of the disease in check.
Half of the reason I proposed that, at least, was because people are always, with good reason, calling for tougher border control. It seemed to me that a mandatory health check could form a natural part of that, so I thought it a not unreasonable suggestion.
Naomi, perhaps I was giving Nigel Farage too much of the benefit of the doubt in my second post, then. I think it's entirely unfair to talk of "abuse" of the system in this context without at the same time either implying that foreign nationals were deliberately getting infected or chastising them for the entirely reasonable point that they are sick and want and need treatment for said sickness. Under such circumstances it seems harsh at the very least to blame such people for the situation they are in. The term abuse is uncalled for and, whether Farage meant it or not, leaves him open to the criticism I suggest. I suspect he probably did, really, but will find a way to cover himself. Either way, it was a poor choice of words.
As to NJ's point -- maybe other countries wouldn't be so quick to throw treatment at immigrant AIDS victims. Ultimately, this is short-sighted, though, because either you have an untreated AIDS victim in your own country (and so the disease is bound to spread), or you have such a person running around another country in which case it will spread there (and, inevitably, come back here). When it comes to disease in particular, we can't afford to be so national in whom we treat. Under those circumstances, the £50 million odd is probably money well spent if it helps to keep the spread of the disease in check.
This HIV infected health tourist found Farage's remarks very offensive.
http://
http://
The latest figures from Public Health England show that it was actually only 6,000 people who were diagnosed with HIV in 2013, of whom 54% were foreign-born. However, country of birth data were only available for 83% of people who were diagnosed.
This figure has actually fallen dramatically recently. As the report says, “New diagnoses have been declining since they peaked in 2005 (at 7,890), largely due to a decrease in the number of diagnoses reported among heterosexuals born in high HIV prevalence countries.”
This figure has actually fallen dramatically recently. As the report says, “New diagnoses have been declining since they peaked in 2005 (at 7,890), largely due to a decrease in the number of diagnoses reported among heterosexuals born in high HIV prevalence countries.”
