Why can't you use an NHS test for travel?

foofi22

mattyprice4004 said:

Because my taxes shouldn’t pay for you to go on holiday  

I hate to break it to you, but your taxes already do 

[Deleted User]

MattMattMattUK said:

gordon_harris said:

MattMattMattUK said:

theDon876 said:

epm-84 said:

Things required solely for international travel are never free from the NHS. If you need a Yellow Fever vaccine solely because you are travelling to a country where there might be Yellow Fever then you need to pay.

Exactly, I have my answer which is profit for the medical industry. A medical tryanny. Does this not raise any eyebrows or call for an investigation?

No, you are choosing to travel, that has costs associated with it, pay the costs or do not travel, do not expect to be able to pass the cost associated with your travel onto the taxpayer. 

I understand there's always a temptation to pile in and scoff at the OP in these cases, but it is worth saying that some people do have to travel for various legitimate reasons. A friend of mine had to travel to France recently after their son had a heart attack and the cost just on testing when leaving and arriving in the UK was over £300. The cost for testing in France was nothing.

If you compare with other countries then I do think the cost of testing in the UK at the moment is over the odds, almost willfully so because of the perception (as shown by this thread) that everybody travelling is just off on holiday.

There might be a legitimate reason (indeed travel was not allowed without one up until very recently), but that does not mean that costs associated with that international travel should be transferred from the individual to the taxpayer. 

I really don't think the issue is as clear cut as that. If people are travelling for legitimate reasons then this is just penalising them for their circumstances/misfortune. We have, for instance, a much discussed benefit for people who are working from home and have to pay extra energy costs (Martin Lewis has been advocating people sign up for it) which is effectively transferring taxpayers' money to individuals who are inconvenienced by Covid-19. I don't see a great deal of difference in doing the same thing (as France does) for people who have to travel for work or a family emergency and are getting hit with hundreds of pounds in fees for testing.

However, the issue I'm really talking about is value for money. I can see the argument for not adopting the French system of a full subsidy, but tests here are substantially more expensive than other countries and there doesn't seem to be much of an explanation for why. It's being shrugged off with lines about holidays, but people like my friend have been seriously affected financially by this and it all seems pretty needless to me.

epm-84

gordon_harris said:

MattMattMattUK said:

gordon_harris said:

MattMattMattUK said:

theDon876 said:

epm-84 said:

Things required solely for international travel are never free from the NHS. If you need a Yellow Fever vaccine solely because you are travelling to a country where there might be Yellow Fever then you need to pay.

Exactly, I have my answer which is profit for the medical industry. A medical tryanny. Does this not raise any eyebrows or call for an investigation?

No, you are choosing to travel, that has costs associated with it, pay the costs or do not travel, do not expect to be able to pass the cost associated with your travel onto the taxpayer. 

I understand there's always a temptation to pile in and scoff at the OP in these cases, but it is worth saying that some people do have to travel for various legitimate reasons. A friend of mine had to travel to France recently after their son had a heart attack and the cost just on testing when leaving and arriving in the UK was over £300. The cost for testing in France was nothing.

If you compare with other countries then I do think the cost of testing in the UK at the moment is over the odds, almost willfully so because of the perception (as shown by this thread) that everybody travelling is just off on holiday.

There might be a legitimate reason (indeed travel was not allowed without one up until very recently), but that does not mean that costs associated with that international travel should be transferred from the individual to the taxpayer. 

I really don't think the issue is as clear cut as that. If people are travelling for legitimate reasons then this is just penalising them for their circumstances/misfortune. We have, for instance, a much discussed benefit for people who are working from home and have to pay extra energy costs (Martin Lewis has been advocating people sign up for it) which is effectively transferring taxpayers' money to individuals who are inconvenienced by Covid-19. I don't see a great deal of difference in doing the same thing (as France does) for people who have to travel for work or a family emergency and are getting hit with hundreds of pounds in fees for testing.

However, the issue I'm really talking about is value for money. I can see the argument for not adopting the French system of a full subsidy, but tests here are substantially more expensive than other countries and there doesn't seem to be much of an explanation for why. It's being shrugged off with lines about holidays, but people like my friend have been seriously affected financially by this and it all seems pretty needless to me.

It seems to be the government's view that if you are on a list of critical workers you are exempt from travel restrictions and if not then tough.  Where the line is drawn with the current list is a BBC journalist is exempt, an ITN or Sky journalist is not!  OK previously it was too vague and it allowed people with a popular YouTube channel to claim an exemption but saying BBC only has gone to the other extreme.