Foreigners face charge to access NHS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23156403

So what does that mean for the ones that have been here years paying into it?

These stories really get under my skin.

I pay into the UK tax system and pay National Insurance.  If the govenment decides to restrict my access can I also expect to not pay any type the taxes that cover the cost of NHS care?  I think not.

Not to mention that I think it is FANTASTIC that you do NOT have to be paying into the tax system to utilize the NHS.  I have known so many people in the US who work to provide medical insurance for their families via work-sponsored insurance plans.  They don't necessarily need their salary to benefit their family but they need a medical insurance benefit plan.  And there, if you can't work, you lose your insurance (in most cases).  The NHS prevents this fear and ensures EVERYONE gets adequate care.

Hoo boy. This is why I rushed to get citizenship as soon as I could. I knew they would pull some crap like this.

Fiercely clutching my Irish passport 

I'm also concerned for people like my son (British born, dual UK/US nationality) who have never worked in the UK.  Should he decide to return to the UK and have difficulty in finding a job, would he be billed for NHS treatment?

Fiercely clutching my Irish passport 

I'm also concerned for people like my son (British born, dual UK/US nationality) who have never worked in the UK.  Should he decide to return to the UK and have difficulty in finding a job, would he be billed for NHS treatment?

I read something the other day that leads me to think that he would.Or at least its one of the things they are considering. It read something along the lines of if you have paid into the system for at LEAST 10 years, you would be entitled to free care, but you need the 10 years.
Ah, found the article here
 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-nhs-at-65-health-tourists-to-be-charged-for-care-8679976.html

The part I am talking about is here...Mr Hunt will also announce plans for a new tracking system which may be linked to patients' NHS numbers, spotting those not allowed free care before they enter the system. Plans to allow ex-pat Britons living abroad to gain free access to NHS healthcare as long as they have paid 10 years of national insurance, will also be considered.

Thanks for that, kbeech.  As I suspected. 

I don't know, that sounds to me like expats who live outside the UK and just come across for free NHS treatment, rather than former expats who actually move back.

Here is the gov't document the OP's story is based on, ironically called "Sustaining services, ensuring fairness"
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210438/Sustaining_services__ensuring_fairness_consultation_document.pdf

Some key points:
Page 6

To tighten up on who is entitled to free NHS treatment, the Government propose to adopt a revised definition of qualifying residency that requires current residence with indefinite leave to remain for non-European Economic Area (EEA4) migrants

13.Building on the principle that qualification for access to free NHS care should reflect a permanent relationship with the UK, we propose that non-EEA nationals who come for a limited period should make an explicit contribution to the costs of their healthcare unless or until they are given indefinite leave to remain.
14.This group of temporary migrants is defined, for the purposes of this consultation, as those who come to the UK under immigration controls to live for a period of up to five years...

Page 21

Proposal
Temporary migrants – those non-EEA migrants subject to immigration control who do not have ILR – will in future have to contribute to their healthcare costs.
This contribution could be delivered through:
- a new levy (the migrant health levy) on their entry visa. This payment will preclude the need to pay specifically for individual treatments at the point of use, with possible limited exceptions for expensive elective treatment.
- Mandatory health insurance top cover the costs of any NHS treatment
Certain categories of temporary migrant may be given the option of not paying
the health levy and therefore waiving the right to free NHS care, on the basis that
they have comprehensive private medical insurance cover. They would be expected to access private medical care if needed, and would be charged for any emergency or other NHS treatment.

On page 22, family migrants are included in the list of those who are deemed not to have full ties and permanent relationships!

I find this outrageous - I've been in the UK since September 2009 and paying tax early 2010. I was a student, then a Tier 1 PSW visa holder, now an FLR(M) visa holder. Until March 2013 I had no access to any of the benefits I pay tax to support. Now I have limited access to things like pensions and maternity leave pay, but still put more into the system than I have taken out. How on Earth is it justified to double-charge me for the use of the NHS, when I have already paid for the right with my taxes?

Isn't the crucial bit the "live for a period up to five years"?  Sounds like its aimed at students.  But how would you would be staying for an indefinite period longer than 5 years?

Don't like the mandatory health insurance proposal at all.

Hmmm, I believe this has been in the works for a while now.  I remember reading about the possibility of family migrants being required to have health insurance.  It was part of the proposal for last year's rule change IIRC, but ultimately not included.  Looks like they haven't forgotten it though.

Sigh.

I'm so tired of being treated like the scourge of the earth because I wasn't born here. I'm a legal migrant, work and pay my taxes. Most of you are all too.

I love it here, but times like these make me re-think my decision to live here.

It all seems a bit desperate to me. Not sure how someone who has lived in the country for four years, earning and paying in to the system, could be considered a health tourist.

The article does say that the changes would primarily affect students. Anyone with ILR would not be affected, nor would a citizen, as I read this.

Panic stations aside, just think about the number of 'proposals' that never make it further than the consultation process or the tabloids. Those of us who are permanent residents have nothing to be concerned about.

And if the levy was £200 per year? Compare that with the cost of seeing a doc in the USA for a minor ailment, and that assumes you would be seen if you don't have health insurance.

This inclusion of students into this wonderfully orchestrated immigration/NHS bash is in itself disingenuous and considering that foreign students are basically cash cows it makes no real financial sense. If this is just an additional revenue raising scheme then it should be billed as such. And again lumping spouses in, who have every intention of settling permanently  - which is what spouse do, with other categories such as short-term IT consultants is baffling.

I think you would have to be an ostrich or something to not know that the NHS needs some work. Since its formation many things have changed , including increased lifespan, EU membership, and cheap flights which might allow someone to pop over, get a hip replaced (how with waiting lists I can't figure out) and then pop back out to Brazil. Due to a lot of things, people seem to be using A&Es more as walk-in clinics. Cancer treatment has improved. Lasers have been developed.

Too, the NHS is huge and biology isn't engineering - just trying to put a quantitative measure on the length of time a wound should heal is very difficult. Something that is as much art as science makes accountants grumpy.

Given the scope and the changing nature of medicine and population the NHS will have to change. But I don't see how targeting a .01 percent savings (again offset completely by added amin) is the way forward.

It looks more like another attempt to grab a populist headline and perhaps trim a few more dodgy immigration numbers to fulfill a poorly thought out election promise.     
   

Let's hope this is just another of those junk proposals to try and win people away from UKIP.

Isn't the crucial bit the "live for a period up to five years"?  Sounds like its aimed at students.

Yes...so it seems that anyone whose visa is for 5 years or less potentially could be targeted. Which is pretty much everyone who doesn't have ILR, not just students but also including for example (and as has been said) people on spouse visas (visas of 1x 2 years or 2x 2.5 years, depending on the application date), people on work visas who would be paying for NHS already through taxes, etc. Check out page 22 of the doc I posted above.

Even if the levy was "only" £200 per year, it's the principle of the thing. I pay tax for the right to use the service already. If it's inefficient and abused, that's not my fault, nor is it the fault of the majority of people who I think would be impacted by this proposal.

The other BBC story I read on this from last October highlighted "health tourists" but spent a lot of the article describing how these tourists paid middlemen or practice managers to fraudulently enrol otherwise ineligible people. Surely it would be more effective to crack down on those people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19789397