OT: Here's a good idea

That idea was also suggested by a caller to our local radio station down here on the South Coast yesterday. I wonder where it originated and how quick it has spread.

G.Harman

It does keep a lot of civil servants in work.

Owain

It keeps the New Left alive.

Marx and Spenders

Failing to solve non-existent problems with someone else's money.

We woke up just in time.

If the proportion of people who directly or indirectly owe their living to the whim of the State, exceeds 50%, then we will be locked in to a totalitarian state.

Anyone who votes otherwise will be on the sosh in a cardboard hutch in a sink estate quicker than you can say 'Karl Marx'

I understand that part of the 'issue' re the NHS and getting cash from other countries is that they (the NHS) don't put much effort into it, certainly compared with many of the other countries where we have a reciprocal arrangement.

Now, as any decent company knows, having a good accounts department is vital when it comes to dealing with such matters so ... ?

As an aside, I also understand that whilst the unclaimed money runs into the millions, it's is an insignificant amount compared with the running costs of the NHS in general and so maybe their accounts department realise this and have worked out it's not as high a priority (so not as 'cost effective) and dealing with other matters?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. As an aside:

My mate has run his own (car) garage for 40+ years and generally deals with suppliers with cash. One (because of thief I think) decided to go 'account only' and so my mate stopped using them (after many many years). A couple of months later said supplier came to him cap_in_hand asking for his (and presumably others) cash-custom back.

His point was that he doesn't have an accounts department so cash is the most efficient way of dealing with such things (for him).

How does he deal with the VAT man?

It would depend on how much money could be recovered that way. Most would think there's little point spending 10 million on a new department to recover 1 million.

But having regained control of our borders after we leave the EU, it should be simple to prevent those coming here for free medical treatment. Surely they must be easier to spot than a terrorist?

In message , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk writes

Many of LBC's phoners-in have been preaching that for weeks (indeed, ever since I can remember).

However, more-reasoned opinion is that while 'every little helps', in the overall scheme of things what we spend on treating deliberate health tourists - and those who need emergency treatment but don't have insurance - is only a drop in the ocean compared with what the NHS actually needs to mend it. Much as we might not like it, there is a good case for increasing taxes and NI contributions. In the meantime, successive governments have simply been issuing statements about how much more they are putting into the NHS, but have otherwise been ignoring the problem. And, of course, for the foreseeable future, their work will be cut out dealing with the Brexit mess.

It's a s*it idea. The NHS is underfunded by the government. The amount spent on treating foreigners is tiny but the Tories promote this false narrative that it is foreigners and immigrants who are putting pressure on services. I know it's difficult if you read the Express but you should have the sense to see through the lies.

Tim W

That's the real problem, that in the NHS it *would* cost £10 million t o recover 1 million.

Owain

The answer is that there will never be enough money to fund the NHS. It does so much more than it was ever envisaged it could.

There's also the point that if peoplel had to pay they might stop coming here for the treatment and thus reduce the burden on the NHS. That would be more valuable than then money in fact.

Robert

I'm guessing you read the Guardian or Independent. In which case you'll only be on nodding terms with reality.

Not just that - drugs and treatments are becoming ever more expensive because they require more research to develop - all the low hanging fruit was picked decades ago - and there's more of them.

Of course it doesn't help when the clueless out of touch fools in wigs make decisions like the following:

So others will have to suffer because some sex addicts who are too irresponsible to use condoms "demand" a drug to stop them getting infected when they indulge in their hedonistic lifestyle.

Personally I'd just tighten up on the insurance of anyone coming here on a visit. One assumes if they move here then they will start to pay in in any case.

Brian

The government have cut budgets, closed dozens of hospitals, got rid of thousands of beds and people wonder why hospitals can't cope.

have they really?

Or is that something you read in the guardian?

Yes - it's only the Guardian which publishes these alternative facts. Others tell only the truth (post, of course).

True. Far better to have the triage nurse in casualty deal with it. After all, most would simply use the touch facility on their mobile phones to pay all those thousands their treatment is going to cost. Wouldn't take a moment.