NHS faces £500m-a-year bill post-Brexit for returning retirees

[Fairyland]

The guardian: NHS faces £500m-a-year bill post-Brexit for returning retirees

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/31/nhs-faces-500m-a-year-bill-post-brexit-for-returning-retirees-says-thinktank

Quote

The NHS would be hit with a bill for an extra £500m a year if all the retired British citizens now living in Europe could no longer get care post-Brexit and returned to the UK, a report from a healthcare thinktank has calculated.

 

Quote

The UK gains more from S1 than some other countries because EU migrants who come to Britain are usually of working age and pay taxes.

Quote

It is possible that extra funds could be found for the NHS from any cancellation of Britain’s EU membership fees – but whether or not these benefits will outweigh the significant staffing and financial costs Brexit may impose on already stretched services remains to be seen.

 

[spyguy]

BS.

Most OAPS over there are paying private healthcare.

And the Spanish healthcare system tends to claw back any cost + more from the NHS.

[Will!]

The UK pays only healthcare costs for British expats in the EEA & Switzerland that would be paid by the state in the EEA and Switzerland, not all healthcare costs.

The story is based on the difference between state and estimated total healthcare costs for British expats in the EEA & Switzerland, but it isn't quantified how many British expats return to the UK for NHS treatment when ill.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/movingabroad/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Quote

If you are living in an EEA country or Switzerland and you receive an exportable UK pension, contribution-based Employment Support Allowance or another exportable benefit, you may be entitled to state healthcare paid for by the UK. You will need to apply for a certificate of entitlement known as an S1 form.

Further edit:  Clarification of the difference between state and total healthcare spending.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Will!

[mathschoc]

Did they factor in that with less migrants to the UK, the NHS will reduce its costs there also.  Although I believe with Brexit there will be a shortage in staff.

[Agentimmo]

27 minutes ago, spyguy said:

BS.

Most OAPS over there are paying private healthcare.

And the Spanish healthcare system tends to claw back any cost + more from the NHS.

Not where I live, on the French Riviera. All the OAP's have the statutory health plans that most French have to have. Nothing unusual there. The "private" part covers the nice extras.

Most would struggle if they had to pay the full market rate for non-EU citizens. Premiums could be treble or higher.

Our local state run hospital even has a nice Welsh nurse who made me a decent cuppa from her own stock of tea bags (Lipton Yellow was the hospital standard issue....ughhh!). Hope she isn't deported

[knock out johnny]

46 minutes ago, mathschoc said:

Did they factor in that with less migrants to the UK, the NHS will reduce its costs there also.  Although I believe with Brexit there will be a shortage in staff.

Young EE immigrants get less sick than retirees coming back with skin cancer and pickled livers, plus the usual oldie conditions

Edited May 31, 2017 by knock out johnny

[Maynardgravy]

If London is anything to go by, the wards are saturated with these 'healthy' EU ers. The ID departments are overwhelmed with African health tourists refugees.

[Riedquat]

The UK gains more from S1 than some other countries because EU migrants who come to Britain are usually of working age and pay taxes.

The short-sighted "look at the only right now and ignore the future consequences" view that results in people getting conned by Ponzi schemes. In this case there's also the factor that young, healthy people don't stay young and healthy for ever. You'd have thought that was an obvious thing to factor in, something that everyone is aware of, but it appears not. Simply put anyone arguing for net immigration hasn't a functioning brain cell in their head.

[knock out johnny]

44 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

 

 

The short-sighted "look at the only right now and ignore the future consequences" view that results in people getting conned by Ponzi schemes. In this case there's also the factor that young, healthy people don't stay young and healthy for ever. You'd have thought that was an obvious thing to factor in, something that everyone is aware of, but it appears not. Simply put anyone arguing for net immigration hasn't a functioning brain cell in their head.

what is your solution other than a cull of the uk population which is pretty much your dream 

[mathschoc]

36 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Young EE immigrants get less sick than retirees coming back with skin cancer and pickled livers, plus the usual oldie conditions

Yes, I did have that mind, but my point was the figure given had not considered there will be a saving, albeit a small one, although it depends on volume leaving too

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

what is your solution other than a cull of the uk population which is pretty much your dream 

Where have I said that a cull of UK population is my dream? That sort of reply to "there are too many people", as if that implies I'd find any means of fixing that problem acceptable, just makes you look stupid.

The solution is to stop letting people in to the country. I thought that was pretty obvious. Keeping piling in ever more numbers solves nothing, it just causes long-term disasters. It's the equivalent of trying to borrow your way out of debt. It might look appealing this week but you're crazy if you think you won't be even worse off in the future as a result. Better just to tighten your belt and manage with what you've got - that's the only sustainable thing you can do anyway.

What is your solution? Ignoring the issues and being extremely short-termist is not a solution.

Oh, and even if sorting the immigration disaster out doesn't solve the problem and there is no sign of an acceptable solution that doesn't mean that there isn't still a serious problem. "What's your solution then?" to someone raising a problem really is just a sign of burying your head in the sand, a denial that there is a problem because you don't know how to solve it. That's a sure way to make certain there will never be a solution.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Riedquat

[Quicken]

Less than 0.4% of the NHS budget, based on a lot of hand-waving special interest pleading. pfft

[iamnumerate]

29 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Where have I said that a cull of UK population is my dream? That sort of reply to "there are too many people", as if that implies I'd find any means of fixing that problem acceptable, just makes you look stupid.

The solution is to stop letting people in to the country. I thought that was pretty obvious. Keeping piling in ever more numbers solves nothing, it just causes long-term disasters. It's the equivalent of trying to borrow your way out of debt. It might look appealing this week but you're crazy if you think you won't be even worse off in the future as a result. Better just to tighten your belt and manage with what you've got - that's the only sustainable thing you can do anyway.

What is your solution? Ignoring the issues and being extremely short-termist is not a solution.

Oh, and even if sorting the immigration disaster out doesn't solve the problem and there is no sign of an acceptable solution that doesn't mean that there isn't still a serious problem. "What's your solution then?" to someone raising a problem really is just a sign of burying your head in the sand, a denial that there is a problem because you don't know how to solve it. That's a sure way to make certain there will never be a solution.

Very well said.  I think that if pro EU politicians had spent more energy into solving the problems caused by EU immigration and less into attacking UKIP remain might have won.  Of course the problem with group think is that you can't accept any criticism as valid and learn from it.

[The Masked Tulip]

How much has mass migration into the UK by vast numbers of people from Africa and the Middle East cost the NHS bill over the past 15 years?

Oh, I forgot - they are all brain surgeons.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

How much has mass migration into the UK by vast numbers of people from Africa and the Middle East cost the NHS bill over the past 15 years?

Oh, I forgot - they are all brain surgeons.

According to Blair they were going to make us rich and find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (or am I confusing his lies?).

[TheCountOfNowhere]

2 hours ago, mathschoc said:

Did they factor in that with less migrants to the UK

 

Man, you are funny.

[AThirdWay]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Where have I said that a cull of UK population is my dream? That sort of reply to "there are too many people", as if that implies I'd find any means of fixing that problem acceptable, just makes you look stupid.

The solution is to stop letting people in to the country. I thought that was pretty obvious. Keeping piling in ever more numbers solves nothing, it just causes long-term disasters. It's the equivalent of trying to borrow your way out of debt. It might look appealing this week but you're crazy if you think you won't be even worse off in the future as a result. Better just to tighten your belt and manage with what you've got - that's the only sustainable thing you can do anyway.

What is your solution? Ignoring the issues and being extremely short-termist is not a solution.

Oh, and even if sorting the immigration disaster out doesn't solve the problem and there is no sign of an acceptable solution that doesn't mean that there isn't still a serious problem. "What's your solution then?" to someone raising a problem really is just a sign of burying your head in the sand, a denial that there is a problem because you don't know how to solve it. That's a sure way to make certain there will never be a solution.

What is your solution to the problem of an ageing population then? I assume that is where the suggestion of a "cull" comes in?

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, AThirdWay said:

What is your solution to the problem of an ageing population then? I assume that is where the suggestion of a "cull" comes in?

Immigration doesn't solve the problem of an ageing population, unless you plan on killing immigrants when they get to 65.  Which I don't think anyone supports.

Particularly as some immigrants are old, I know one woman who came here in late 50s if not older and got a council house in a London suburb - and she complained about having to live far out.

[AThirdWay]

10 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Immigration doesn't solve the problem of an ageing population, unless you plan on killing immigrants when they get to 65.  Which I don't think anyone supports.

Particularly as some immigrants are old, I know one woman who came here in late 50s if not older and got a council house in a London suburb - and she complained about having to live far out.

The most EU immigrants don't actually stay in the UK long-term, certainly to to retirement age, hence the increase in both immigration and migration figures.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Edited May 31, 2017 by AThirdWay

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

The most EU immigrants don't actually stay in the UK long-term, certainly to to retirement age, hence the increase in both immigration and migration figures.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

I should have set net immigration doesn't help with the aging population.

That website has some really weird views on housing

https://fullfact.org/immigration/new-house-every-four-minutes-due-immigration/

 

Quote

First, just having a figure for households doesn't mean this many 'houses' would also be needed. More than one household can share the same building.

Are they implying we should have multiple families living in the same house/flat?  I know that it is true but it is not a desired state of affairs, is it? [I have done it and didn't like it much].

[kzb]

This report is BS.

If ALL 190,000 come home?  Really?

Also, these retirees will have pensions.  They won't just have the state pension.  Many of them are property owners.

If they came back they would be tax payers, their pensions would be spent in the UK and that would boost GDP.

On balance they would benefit the UK economy.  And if May gets her way with the dementia tax, the sky's the limit.

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by kzb

[frankief]

delete

Edited June 1, 2017 by frankief

[knock out johnny]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Where have I said that a cull of UK population is my dream? That sort of reply to "there are too many people", as if that implies I'd find any means of fixing that problem acceptable, just makes you look stupid.

The solution is to stop letting people in to the country. I thought that was pretty obvious. Keeping piling in ever more numbers solves nothing, it just causes long-term disasters. It's the equivalent of trying to borrow your way out of debt. It might look appealing this week but you're crazy if you think you won't be even worse off in the future as a result. Better just to tighten your belt and manage with what you've got - that's the only sustainable thing you can do anyway.

What is your solution? Ignoring the issues and being extremely short-termist is not a solution.

Oh, and even if sorting the immigration disaster out doesn't solve the problem and there is no sign of an acceptable solution that doesn't mean that there isn't still a serious problem. "What's your solution then?" to someone raising a problem really is just a sign of burying your head in the sand, a denial that there is a problem because you don't know how to solve it. That's a sure way to make certain there will never be a solution.

You're not going to like this, but stagnant or reducing populations are currently not an option - how often do people acknowledge the tax base is reducing for ongoing pensions

And you (and I) are going to need someone to wipe our @ss in our dotage (and I don't think robots are quite there yet)

I know you hark back to rickets and TB but going backwards is neither a solution nor an option

[newbonic]

I know someone who works in admissions in a Large NHS Hospital in Yorks. They get lots of Roma of all ages in, from overweight young people (seems to be endemic) to pensioners who have travelled to the UK for 'free' treatment. The person works with a couple of Romanian nurses who absolutely loath the Roma!

One hopes that after Brexit these money sinks go back to their clan villages (6000 in Sheffield at a net cost of £30m pa apparently) - unlike most returning Brit pensioners the Roma don't have state + occupational pensions to spend here.

[newbonic]

2 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

You're not going to like this, but stagnant or reducing populations are currently not an option - how often do people acknowledge the tax base is reducing for ongoing pensions

And you (and I) are going to need someone to wipe our @ss in our dotage (and I don't think robots are quite there yet)

I know you hark back to rickets and TB but going backwards is neither a solution nor an option

Societally, Japan is doing just fine with a stagnant population. And it is quite within the wit and will of the Japanese to boost birth rates  if necessary without 'doing a Merkel'...