EU Deal - Money still sent to other economies

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This appears to be your stock answer for every point. Anyone who says anything against the EU has you pointing out why they are irrelevant.

Do you think 'health tourism' is a bigger burden on the NHS than for example our aging polulation or the obesity crisis we currently face?
You're entitled to believe that, but you'd be wrong.
Talking about stock answers, you and your ilk also have one.
nhs in crisis? immigrants!
expensive housing? immigrants!
housing waiting lists? immigrants!
traffic jams? immigrants!

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Do you think 'health tourism' is a bigger burden on the NHS than for example our aging polulation or the obesity crisis we currently face?
You're entitled to believe that, but you'd be wrong.
Talking about stock answers, you and your ilk also have one.
nhs in crisis? immigrants!
expensive housing? immigrants!
housing waiting lists? immigrants!
traffic jams? immigrants!

you definitely don't think the price of property in London, is in any way related to the 3 million foreign born people living there?

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

you definitely don't think the price of property in London, is in any way related to the 3 million foreign born people living there?

London has a buoyant economy. That attracts people, both UK born and foreign born. Is it bad to have a buoyant economy?

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

Do you think 'health tourism' is a bigger burden on the NHS than for example our aging polulation or the obesity crisis we currently face?

I'll wait for the actual speech to take place.

However, health tourism is a big issue. As the pre-speech states, cancer treatment can cost £200,000 per person, and many are travelling in from the EU to benefit from this treatment as they are cannot afford it at home or their insurance will not cover it.

The governments own figures state that health tourism (on a very rough estimate) costs £2bn a year. This is split into "deliberate" use (as in the only reason they come here is to use the NHS estimated at up to £280m a year. Then there is normal use, which covers "use while on holiday" etc. This is estimated at £1.8bn a year.

I believe these figures only look at hospital costs, where the costs can be quantified by a tarrif system. GP costs I don't believe are included. Neither are the costs of translators etc (£23m)

What I'm interested in from this bloke talking about cancer is what his references and stats are. Until we know that, we can't really determine whether he is to be ignored or not. (though you have clearly decided beforehand).

What I do know is that government stats hide a plethora of stuff everywhere.

To give some context on how rough these estimates are, 6 months before the government published this 500 page report and coming up with £2bn, Jermey Hunt has stated that health tourism costs the NHS £12m a year based on reports.

So 2 reports, 6 months apart, one says £12m, another says its 167x higher than that figure. So in my mind, it could be anything.

Sapphire

savepete wrote: »

@Sapphire - would you mind telling me three orders you have received from "Germany and various unelected bureaucrats of the like of Juncker"?

P.S. Juncker was elected, even if Cameron opposed him.

I didn't personally receive any orders from Juncker or Frau Merkel. But they have certainly attempted to dispense orders with regard to migrant 'quotas' to countries that categorically did not want to take them (and if you knew anything about central European history, you would realise why). Neither Juncker nor Merkel were elected by citizens of Britain (unlike our MPs, for example), to issue directives on political matters that affect Britain.

You may be comfortable about a loss of sovereignty for Britain (and other European countries). I am not, and don't ever remember British subjects even being consulted on the matter of 'political union'.

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Anybody watch the programme on Cyprus recently. They still hate the Germans (even more than the Greeks) for the atrocities they inflicted in WW2. The EU is far from a harmonised group of countries.

Indeed. The European countries are not like the states of the United States. They have hugely different histories (and yes, a mistrust and in some cases a dislike of Germany and its ambitions), very different national characters and are unlikely to be able to work together harmoniously without strife. So a political union is just as stupid an idea as a currency union for countries that have massively different economies (the latter has already been demonstrated in the Euro countries and the situation in this instance will very likely get much worse).

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

London has a buoyant economy. That attracts people, both UK born and foreign born. Is it bad to have a buoyant economy?

I do not consider money as the sole and only factor determining the quality of life.
What can be bought with that money is also important.
So is the ability to buy a family sized house at a reasonable age.

The buoyant London economy makes mid salary people poorer in terms of their quality of life compared to their equivalents 20-30 years ago: so no, it isn't a price worth paying.

what do you think?

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

I do not consider money as the sole and only factor determining the quality of life.
What can be bought with that money is also important.
So is the ability to buy a family sized house at a reasonable age.

The buoyant London economy makes mid salary people poorer in terms of their quality of life compared to their equivalents 20-30 years ago: so no, it isn't a price worth paying.

what do you think?

It's the same in every major global city. There are no cheap ('affordable') properties in Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Shanghai either.
What's your solution? Choke off the economy in order to reduce house prices, immigration and traffic jams?

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's the same in every major global city. There are no cheap ('affordable') properties in Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Shanghai either.
What's your solution? Choke off the economy in order to reduce house prices, immigration and traffic jams?

The issue is whether the impact of high and continuing levels of immigration improves the quality of life for the (existing ) people of the UK.

More people and more production does NOT equate to a better standard of living for the people.

The purpose of the economy would seem to me, to be to provide a good standard of living for the people.

So the solution is to restrict population growth, which is effectively to restrict immigration and so improve the quality of live for people of the UK.

I do not view high houses prices and poor housing standards or high level of traffic pollution or increasing travel times etc as improvements in the standard of living.