Do these new NHS rules affect my wife whos on FLR on a spouse Visa?

I'm not anti immigration, I'm anti uncontrolled, low skilled immigration. However what these high numbers of low skilled immigrants have caused, is to make the UK goverment look at the impact on services and act (excuse the pun) accordingly, with new laws. New laws that will go deeper than before. More new laws to come in.

Not to sound daft -- but don't we all rely quite heavily on what you call "low-skilled immigrants" ?--And what percentage of these low-skilled immigrants are actually from the EU vs. non-EU countries?  If they're paying their taxes (albiet a lower percentage than some), who are we to say that they shouldn't be eligible for treatment at the same rate to others that contribute?  What about all the UK-citizens residing within the UK who don't contribute to the system at all, and instead commit benefit fraud?  Surely they should have to pay for the services provided to them at some point, because I don't quite understand why I see people on benefits being able to afford more luxurious items than my partner and myself...

Aside from that, I think it comes down to the fact that currently, the NHS is not exactly set up for people to pay fees (whether they want to or not).  In my experience, even registering with a GP, the staff aren't necessarily trained in understanding which of us foreign folk are eligible or not-- so long as you provide a piece of mail addressed to you (for proof of address), they've registered me.  I've always brought in my passport/visa/BRP to register, but they've never asked for it, and when I asked if they needed it-- they didn't understand/recognise what I was trying to provide (in other words--proof that I'm eligible for treatment on the NHS).  I've done the same on the 2 occasions where I sought treatment at A&E (once for a broken toe--which is not exactly an emergency, and the other for an ectopic pregnancy--which actually was)

To me, if they put the right practices into place at the point of care, then the laws wouldn't be necessary.

Lastly, if we're going to be hating on foreigners with limited skill sets, let's focus on grammar for a quick second: it's = it is.  its=possessive of it.  Maybe I'm the only one, but it really trips me up when that apostrophe is included where it shouldn't be.   

I can see why they wanted to do as other countries have done when they protect their  health service for it's citizens...

Too late. The Immigration Bill had it's first reading last year. I posted about it.

Canada does this too with it's returning citizens.

Not to sound daft -- but don't we all rely quite heavily on what you call "low-skilled immigrants" ?--

Did you miss the word "uncontrolled"?

And what percentage of these low-skilled immigrants are actually from the EU vs. non-EU countries?

Do you realise that EU citizens have a right to be in the UK? And that EU countries share each others national health system?

 

If they're paying their taxes (albiet a lower percentage than some), who are we to say that they shouldn't be eligible for treatment at the same rate to others that contribute?

If you read the NHS consultation that the UK government launched over a year ago, they explained why we are making these changes. That consultation was in response to UK citizens request for NHS change, on the governmnet website about 4 or 5 years ago. These changes are nothing new.

What about all the UK-citizens residing within the UK who don't contribute to the system at all, and instead commit benefit fraud?

A UK citizen claiming benefits in their own country and using their own health service, how very dare they. UK citizens carry their citizens who don't have a job, we don't let them go without healthcare. Most western countries do this.

What makes you think that only the locals claim UK benefits or commit benefit fraud?

For those caught claiming benefits they had no right to, they can get time in prison, have to repay the debt as well as a fine, have their ILR refused, have sanctions put on them for months and have to use the foodbanks instead, have their tax code altered to repay the debt, have the bailiffs sent in.

Surely they should have to pay for the services provided to them at some point, because I don't quite understand why I see people on benefits being able to afford more luxurious items than my partner and myself...

People who work full time in London, tend to earn more than those on benefits. Is it really worth living in London if you aren't on high wages?

Tax Credits is the benefit that allows claimants to buy luxurious items. A benefit that was only invented a decade ago and is being removed under the welfare reforms. The immigration and welfare changes are nothing new.

Aside from that, I think it comes down to the fact that currently, the NHS is not exactly set up for people to pay fees (whether they want to or not).  In my experience, even registering with a GP, the staff aren't necessarily trained in understanding which of us foreign folk are eligible or not

Of course it isn't. The NHS is still set up for how it use to be when we only had tens of thousands of immigrants a year coming to the UK. Now we have hundreds of thousands a year, the changes are coming in to protect services.

SusanP I am deeply annoyed by the seeming ignorance of these last remarks. The only explanation I can come up with is ignorance or poor communication.

UNSKILLED? Who coming from outside the European Union LEGALLY these days is unskilled? You seem to subscribe to some sort of Daily Mail/ Channel4 view of immigration! Do you actually know how difficult it is to qualify for the three types of visas that are actually available in any number these days. Let me lay it out for you:
Tier 2: sponsored by an employer to fill a recognised general shortage of a specific category of skilled work (certain types of engineer, consulting surgeon, etc...) OR to fill a role that could not be filled by any EU citizen during the recruitment process.
Tier 4: students. Most are University students. Do you claim that people with degrees (many to postgraduate level) are unskilled? Well, that may be debateable, but they are certainly not uneducated and 'low-skilled' in the sense that many people would mean.
Families: by this we mean spouses and children. Some of these spouses and many of these children will be 'low-skilled' upon entry to the UK. However, the sponsor now has to meet a myriad of conditions to bring their FAMILY to be with them to prove they will not be an undo burden on the UK taxpayer. Are you advocating the separation of families?

The past is the past. Perhaps Labour messed up. Perhaps large numbers of people coming here for the past decade and a bit are lower skilled. NONE OF THESE CHANGES WILL AFFECT THEM. Most of these 'unskilled' people that you claim are coming over are either from the EU, which has a free movement of peoples, are here illegally, or came such a long time ago that they are now entitled to indefinite leave to remain/ citizenship. Unskilled non-EU immigration (if it ever really happened) is truly a thing of the past, which these changes cannot undo and will unfairly penalise highly skilled, hard-working young immigrants (because most people immigrate during their working life, and not when they are elderly and have serious health issues).

I have been here for 10 years - my entire adult life. I have never been eligible to, nor have I ever claimed a pence from the British govt. I am young. I have been to a GP 3 times, and yet I pay the same NI as everyone else. You are saying that just because of where I happened to be born, vs where a Brit was born, they should be entitled to have their entire lives subsidised and paid for by hard working people such as myself. And yet, people like me, who are generally young and use NHS services less than the native population cost-wise, should have to pay a special levy when I already contribute to the NHS via my National Insurance at the same rate as everyone else? Do you know how prejudiced that opinion is? Isn't that actually the rest of the world subsidising the British NHS?

Your ignorance ASTOUNDS.
Link to evidence that young immigrants contribute more to services than they take out:
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/immigration.html
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service
http://news.sky.com/story/1155532/nhs-has-immigration-saved-the-health-service

BTW: a foreign worker did not have their childhood and education paid for by the British govt. Other countries did that, and this country reaps the rewards of working-aged immigrants.

SusanP I am deeply annoyed by the seeming ignorance of these last remarks. The only explanation I can come up with is ignorance or poor communication.

UNSKILLED? Who coming from outside the European Union LEGALLY these days is unskilled? You seem to subscribe to some sort of Daily Mail/ Channel4 view of immigration! Do you actually know how difficult it is to qualify for the three types of visas that are actually available in any number these days. Let me lay it out for you:
Tier 2: sponsored by an employer to fill a recognised general shortage of a specific category of skilled work (certain types of engineer, consulting surgeon, etc...) OR to fill a role that could not be filled by any EU citizen during the recruitment process.
Tier 4: students. Most are University students. Do you claim that people with degrees (many to postgraduate level) are unskilled? Well, that may be debateable, but they are certainly not uneducated and 'low-skilled' in the sense that many people would mean.
Families: by this we mean spouses and children. Some of these spouses and many of these children will be 'low-skilled' upon entry to the UK. However, the sponsor now has to meet a myriad of conditions to bring their FAMILY to be with them to prove they will not be an undo burden on the UK taxpayer. Are you advocating the separation of families?

The past is the past. Perhaps Labour messed up. Perhaps large numbers of people coming here for the past decade and a bit are lower skilled. NONE OF THESE CHANGES WILL AFFECT THEM. Most of these 'unskilled' people that you claim are coming over are either from the EU, which has a free movement of peoples, are here illegally, or came such a long time ago that they are now entitled to indefinite leave to remain/ citizenship. Unskilled non-EU immigration (if it ever really happened) is truly a thing of the past, which these changes cannot undo and will unfairly penalise highly skilled, hard-working young immigrants (because most people immigrate during their working life, and not when they are elderly and have serious health issues).

I have been here for 10 years - my entire adult life. I have never been eligible to, nor have I ever claimed a pence from the British govt. I am young. I have been to a GP 3 times, and yet I pay the same NI as everyone else. You are saying that just because of where I happened to be born, vs where a Brit was born, they should be entitled to have their entire lives subsidised and paid for by hard working people such as myself. And yet, people like me, who are generally young and use NHS services less than the native population cost-wise, should have to pay a special levy when I already contribute to the NHS via my National Insurance at the same rate as everyone else? Do you know how prejudiced and unduly punitive that opinion is? Isn't that actually the rest of the world subsidising the British NHS?

Your ignorance ASTOUNDS.
Link to evidence that young immigrants contribute more to services than they take out:
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/immigration.html
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service
http://news.sky.com/story/1155532/nhs-has-immigration-saved-the-health-service

BTW: a foreign worker did not have their childhood and education paid for by the British govt. Other countries did that, and this country reaps the rewards of working-aged immigrants.

The UK is a Member State of the European Union. The freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour is the foundation of the EU.

The idea is that if we see mass migration from one Member State to others, forces can be deployed to bring about equilibrium. Countries such as the UK and Germany can invest in Romania, for instance, and as conditions improve less will migrate. 

Poland is a good example. There were certainly a lot of Polish people moving to the UK 10 years ago, but as the Polish economy has improved, migration levels have dropped drastically. Equilibrium has been reached.

I think one reason more UK people don't migrate to other EU Member States is that Britons don't learn foreign languages to the levels seen in other Member States. For instance 80% of Swedes speak English.

The UK is a Member State of the European Union. The freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour is the foundation of the EU.

The idea is that if we see mass migration from one Member State to others, forces can be deployed to bring about equilibrium. Countries such as the UK and Germany can invest in Romania, for instance, and as conditions improve less will migrate. 

Poland is a good example. There were certainly a lot of Polish people moving to the UK 10 years ago, but as the Polish economy has improved, migration levels have dropped drastically. Equilibrium has been reached.

I think one reason more UK people don't migrate to other EU Member States is that Britons don't learn foreign languages to the levels seen in other Member States. For instance 80% of Swedes speak English.

And yet none of the rule changes are going to affect migrants (who are sometimes low skilled, and sometimes NOT) from EU member states. These changes just affect migrants who are, on the whole, quite skilled. In fact SusanP, Tier 2 is the so-called 'skilled' migrant visa. So why change these rules?

It really makes no sense to me....

BTW, I am not saying that changes SHOULD affect EU migrants. As Susanp already pointed out, there are 'reciprocal' agreements between EU member states health services. Never mind the fact the non-EU migrants (working people) pay for their use of the NHS through taxation in the UK already.

Non-EU students are another story, but I am not sure which way my opinion swings on that one. I haven't looked at this issue in much detail and have not yet formed an argument in either direction...

Non-EU students are another story, but I am not sure which way my opinion swings on that one. I haven't looked at this issue in much detail and have not yet formed an argument in either direction...

Yeah the student thing is tricky.  On the one hand, non-EU students are often paying double fees.  Mine are £13.8k for my one year taught masters, while home fees are in the range of £6k-7k.  Obviously this money doesn't go straight to taxes, but it is contributing to the UK economy significantly, especially if its going to an institution that receives public funds.  Additionally, students are allowed to work 20 hours per week.  I know finding a job is at the top of my list of things to do upon arrival.  And just like all other migrants, students aren't allowed public funds and have to show that they have the money to live on without being a burden.  You'd think all that would be enough of a fail-safe to let students get their healthcare for free, especially since most students are young and won't need much NHS care.

On the other hand, if the levy really is only £150 for students, that's WAY less than I'd be paying here for health care, so it's really not that big of a burden. 

On the other hand, if the levy really is only £150 for students, that's WAY less than I'd be paying here for health care, so it's really not that big of a burden. 

Which raises the question (Alison will know of course that it doesn't 'beg the question'), again what is the real point?  What does £150 cover? A sore throat?

This can't possibly be about recouping actual costs. It's spin.

there are 'reciprocal' agreements between EU member states health services.

Some say the UK upholds their end of the bargain better or something another....

But when speaking of 'controlling immigration' you have to consider EU Membership - which I support fully (and in fact I get a bit misty just listening to Kraftwerk).

I don't know that GB will ever really be happy in it though.

Not to sound daft -- but don't we all rely quite heavily on what you call "low-skilled immigrants" ?--And what percentage of these low-skilled immigrants are actually from the EU vs. non-EU countries?  If they're paying their taxes (albiet a lower percentage than some), who are we to say that they shouldn't be eligible for treatment at the same rate to others that contribute?  What about all the UK-citizens residing within the UK who don't contribute to the system at all, and instead commit benefit fraud?  Surely they should have to pay for the services provided to them at some point, because I don't quite understand why I see people on benefits being able to afford more luxurious items than my partner and myself...

Love this!  Preach!  Preach!

Without some of the "low skilled immigration", this country would not be as great as it is.  Look at carers in an assisted care facility, the cleaners on the trains and other public places, or other non-glamorous jobs and you often find HARD working immigrants who are grateful for the work.

Not to mention how the NHS would be if immigrants were not allowed.  The UK benefits greatly from medical professionals who are not UK-born and educated.

SusanP is an obvious troll, don't feed it.

Thought this would be of interest:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/foreign-visitors-owe-nhs-2bn-factcheck/16194

Thought this would be of interest:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/foreign-visitors-owe-nhs-2bn-factcheck/16194

Thanks a lot City, that website will bog me down for days now.

Countries such as the UK and Germany can invest in Romania, for instance, and as conditions improve less will migrate.  

In theory. It didn't work that well with Spain, although in part that is due to the Euro being lead down the worng path for all euro countires.

Poland is a good example. There were certainly a lot of Polish people moving to the UK 10 years ago, but as the Polish economy has improved, migration levels have dropped drastically. Equilibrium has been reached.

Or that might be more to do with the fact that the UK didn't restrict the numbers from Poland, whereas other EU countries did? That time restriction on numbers has now ended and Germany is next door to Poland, where it's easier to drive home to visit family.

 

I think one reason more UK people don't migrate to other EU Member States is that Britons don't learn foreign languages to the levels seen in other Member States. For instance 80% of Swedes speak English.

"English is the launguage of the EU business world" as I recall that French business leader saying, just before Chirac walked out. Even your country uses our language. It's true though, we don't teach enough languages in schools as other EU countries do.

EU citizens don't all get free NHS when they reside in the UK. Many have to purchase a CSI (Comprehensive Sickness Policy) from private insurance companies, for themselves and their dependants. The price they pay for their private insurance has to cover any exisiting conditons and takes into account their weight, age and whether they smoke. They have to provide proof of this for the whole 5 years, when they apply for PR.

In some case where the EU citizen doesn't work but their non-EU partner does, they still have to buy CSI as their free movement rights are based on what the EU citizen is doing. At best, they may be able to get their own EU country to pay for their healthcare in the UK, using the EHICs from their own EU country.

Those on the EU route in the UK and who aren't allowed free NHS under EU rules, won't be offered the chance to buy this NHS levy. They will still have to buy private CSI.

Thanks a lot City, that website will bog me down for days now.

Do what I can.