The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

asylum seekers ARE fast-tracked in the NHS

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for Goddess Fury
Goddess Fury
OP
8
Gilliwoo
What do you mean "asylum seekers aren't here legally yet"?


I'm not sure that all asylum seekers come to "leech of the system".

I'm not sure that all asylum seekers come to "leech of the system

Yes they do, if they just wanted to be safe they would stay in the first safe country. The one's who go across safe country after safe country want something more than safety.
Reply 61
Avatar for Gilliwoo
Gilliwoo
technik
not hard to see why the NHS is in meltdown with the "we can look after everyone" sentiments running rampant around here. the idealism of youth.

one day you'll see the realistic and right path.

The NHS is not in "meltdown", and if it is, it is certainly not because a small minority of people are added to its lists every once in a while. As long as we have a system of asylum, they are entitled morally to the benefits of living here. Moreover, we can afford it. There's absolutely no basis in reason, to change this aspect of the system.
technik
not hard to see why the NHS is in meltdown with the "we can look after everyone" sentiments running rampant around here. the idealism of youth.

one day you'll see the realistic and right path.


That is not why the NHS is in meltdown. I take issue with the idea that it is in "meltdown" at all (do you read the Mail by any chance?!) but if it is having problems it is not due to giving a few asylum seekers healthcare.
Reply 63
Avatar for Gilliwoo
Gilliwoo
happybob
Yes they do, if they just wanted to be safe they would stay in the first safe country. The one's who go across safe country after safe country want something more than safety.

what?
Gilliwoo
The NHS is not in "meltdown", and if it is, it is certainly not because a small minority of people are added to its lists every once in a while. As long as we have a system of asylum, they are entitled morally to the benefits of living here. Moreover, we can afford it. There's absolutely no basis in reason, to change this aspect of the system.


You took the words right out of my mouth, ohhh it must have been while you were kissing meeeeee etc. :cool:
Reply 65
Avatar for technik
technik
13
happybob
Yes they do, if they just wanted to be safe they would stay in the first safe country. The one's who go across safe country after safe country want something more than safety.


that is curious isn't it being we're probably one of the more "out of the way" countries...what with being an island in the middle of an ocean in the northern hemisphere with few war ravaged and desperately impoverished nations within easy travelling distance.
Gilliwoo
what?


TEH BLOODZ OF BRITISH CHILDRENZ!!
Reply 67
Avatar for Gilliwoo
Gilliwoo
technik
that is curious isn't it being we're probably one of the more "out of the way" countries...what with being an island in the middle of an ocean in the northern hemisphere with few war ravaged and desperately impoverished nations within easy travelling distance.

Do you live in the Middle Ages, when people traversed the world by sea and foot? :rolleyes: Seeking and granting asylum isn't simply a matter of island hopping, or "find us the closest country".
Reply 68
Avatar for Goddess Fury
Goddess Fury
OP
8
Gilliwoo
what?

I was saying that they DO want to come here to leech the system, if they wanted to simply be safe they would go to the nearest safe country.(as opposed to going half way around the world to an island off the coast of France)
Reply 69
Avatar for Goddess Fury
Goddess Fury
OP
8
Gilliwoo
Do you live in the Middle Ages, when people traversed the world by sea and foot? :rolleyes: Seeking and granting asylum isn't simply a matter of island hopping, or "find us the closest country".

No, it's finding the country that will offer them the best life, which is basically soft-touch Britain.
No, it's finding the country that will offer them the best life, which is basically soft-touch Britain.

Isn't a that a complement? You know, our tolerance?
Reply 71
Avatar for technik
technik
13
Jennybean
That is not why the NHS is in meltdown. I take issue with the idea that it is in "meltdown" at all (do you read the Mail by any chance?!) but if it is having problems it is not due to giving a few asylum seekers healthcare.


no i just contrast treatment i've actually had in NHS with treatment i've had privately. best way to compare isn't it? by actually experiencing it yourself?

the NHS is a pale comparison. half the time you can't even find a dentist to give you a check up these days. farcical. was a story here in NI last week about a guy who broke his neck after falling during his work and had to wait 16 days for the NHS to find time to do an operation on him. helpfully he was told "not to move" before hand. you try lying perfectly still for 16 days because the system is such a joke that there's no one actually able to operate on you. the place is getting bled dry...when we can't even put a system in place to look after the people paying for it why should anyone else get precedence?
Reply 72
Avatar for Gilliwoo
Gilliwoo
happybob
I was saying that they DO want to come here to leech the system, if they wanted to simply be safe they would go to the nearest safe country.(as opposed to going half way around the world to an island off the coast of France)

First, the politics of assylum isn't simply a matter of "let's find the closest country". Asylum seekers have to consider where it is legally possible for them to go, and with how much relative ease and immediacy in their typically desperate circumstances. Second, Britain simply does not soak up the entire world population of refugees.
technik
no i just contrast treatment i've actually had in NHS with treatment i've had privately. best way to compare isn't it? by actually experiencing it yourself?


No.......anaecdotal comparision is by far the worse way to compare the NHS with private. You might as well read the Daily Mail and take it as fact.

Besides, of course private healthcare is going to be better than the NHS - it's better funder per person. It doesn't mean the NHS is in meltdown though.
I don't understand why they need to be fast tracked.
I'm not going to repeat the arguments that the NHS should be happy to serve all based on need etc because others have made these points probably better than I could.

However, I would like to point to another aspect about this: Those who think that asylum seekers should be kicked out ASAP - do you want them to be stuck here because they're waiting for NHS treatment to make them well enough to leave? So, even according to your slightly warped sense of morals, you should be in favour of this so that failed asylum seekers can leave quicker.
Reply 76
Avatar for Goddess Fury
Goddess Fury
OP
8
TML
Isn't a that a complement? You know, our tolerance?

No, it just means we are ****ing stupid.
Maybe you feel stupid but I see it as an achievement. Perhaps you're just insecure?
Reply 78
Avatar for Tufts
Tufts
17
OP, what have all your neg reps said?
Reply 79
Avatar for TommyS
TommyS
happybob
No, it just means we are ****ing stupid.


People are attracted to our country because yes we take care of people, we are tolerant (for the most part), and because they want to get jobs and earn a living in our strong economy

Immigrants and asylum seekers put more into this country than they take out, and to drive our strong economy we need them. As far as them being given NHS priority is concerned it depends on the case I guess, but your beef seems to be with the asylum seekers in the first place

Its not like the NHS is throwing British babies into the street so they can patch up some asylum seeker's broken nail

Btw, do you regularly buy the Daily Mail?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you