Turn on thread page Beta

asylum seekers ARE fast-tracked in the NHS watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyS)
    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 a load of rubbish we don't need them, the government has mismanaged the country into needing them, but there are other ways to be economically competitive without mass immigration. its a short term fix anyway and is unsustinable because it needs more and more migrants to keep the ball rolling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Isn't a that a complement? You know, our tolerance?
    Tolerance might be a nice quality - but being a "soft touch" - having a "candy from a baby" reputation just makes us look like a country of bloody fools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Asylum Seekers - Makes me laugh that phrase.

    "Well the UK wont let me in for no reason...ooo nooo...im in danger all of a sudden..oh they'll let me in now"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyS)
    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?
    Immigrants and asylum seekers put more into this country than they take out, and to drive our strong economy we need them
    asylum seekers don't put a penny into the country. As for other immigrants, there economic advantage is tiny, it's a total myth that we need them. We would gain far far more money simply by leaving the EU.
    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
    I am botherd about asylum seekers for other reasons as well.
    Its not like the NHS is throwing British babies into the street so they can patch up some asylum seeker's broken nail
    Irrelevant
    Btw, do you regularly buy the Daily Mail?
    Yes. Do you read the guardian?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I notice that nobody has yet made a logical argument for why those that are within a nation, but not legally a member of said nation should be denied coverage by a system of universal healthcare, which by definition is constrained only by geography.

    It seems that most people actually have a more general problem with universal healthcare or migration, not the specifics of applicants for asylum getting healthcare under the current systems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    asylum seekers don't put a penny into the country. As for other immigrants, there economic advantage is tiny, it's a total myth that we need them. We would gain far far more money simply by leaving the EU.
    You fool, a Home Office analysis found out that asylum seekers and refugees contribute around £2.5 billion to the British economy per annum. Hardly a tiny sum. I'm not even going to bother with your EU jibe, as that's a whole new debate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiom)
    You fool, a Home Office analysis found out that asylum seekers and refugees contribute around £2.5 billion to the British economy per annum. Hardly a tiny sum. I'm not even going to bother with your EU jibe, as that's a whole new debate.

    1) £2.5 billion = 0.2% of GDP.

    2) You haven't proved that that income wouldn't be generated if they weren't here.

    3) You haven't mentioned costs of asylum seekers/refugees.



    Anyway, I actually have no problem with asylum seekers and refugees, the system we currently have isn't bad. BUT of course asylum seekers shouldn't be put before UK citizens with similar ailments!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    I notice that nobody has yet made a logical argument for why those that are within a nation, but not legally a member of said nation should be denied coverage by a system of universal healthcare, which by definition is constrained only by geography.

    Really? I thought a national health service covered members of a nation. Which is not the same thing as anyone within the boundaries of that nation.
    Offline

    13
    The thing I resent the most about this whole asylum seeker crap is the way it is the individuals themselves who are attacked.

    If someone is a genuine asylum seeker they should be helped surely, if they are an economic migrant pretending to be seeking asylum then they are only doing what you or I might well do in similar circumstances. We have the luxury of being citizens in a wealthy western state, we didn't earn that status, we just 'got lucky'. These people often come from poor parts of the world with little prospect and they're using their initiative. If people want to criticise immigration policy then criticise the policy, but attacking human beings who are just acting rationally to try and improve their lives is not impressive.

    [/end of rant]
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    The thing I resent the most about this whole asylum seeker crap is the way it is the individuals themselves who are attacked.

    If someone is a genuine asylum seeker they should be helped surely, if they are an economic migrant pretending to be seeking asylum then they are only doing what you or I might well do in similar circumstances. We have the luxury of being citizens in a wealthy western state, we didn't earn that status, we just 'got lucky'. These people often come from poor parts of the world with little prospect and they're using their initiative. If people want to criticise immigration policy then criticise the policy, but attacking human beings who are just acting rationally to try and improve their lives is not impressive.

    [/end of rant]

    I totally agree, you should be helped.

    But you shouldn't be shunted up the queue! You should be treated THE SAME as a UK citizen in the same need, not better. That's all I'm saying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    Really? I thought a national health service covered members of a nation. Which is not the same thing as anyone within the boundaries of that nation.
    Yes. If someone who isn't a member of the nation - say, a holiday-maker or an asylum seeker - is taken ill in a nation with an insurance based system, they require insurance. Hence people buy (and know that they have to buy) holiday insurance. If said person is taken ill in the same country but it operates universal healthcare, they get treated. If a universal healthcare system turns away asylum seekers it should, logically, turn away holidaying foreigners or people on business trips as they are identical in it's eyes and if it does that it isn't universal. Not only that but it leaves a gaping void within which there is no healthcare available whether you plan to use it or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    I totally agree, you should be helped.

    But you shouldn't be shunted up the queue! You should be treated THE SAME as a UK citizen in the same need, not better. That's all I'm saying.
    Yeah, god damn them. Getting their forms in marginally quicker than us students...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    Yes. If someone who isn't a member of the nation - say, a holiday-maker or an asylum seeker - is taken ill in a nation with an insurance based system, they require insurance. Hence people buy (and know that they have to buy) holiday insurance. If said person is taken ill in the same country but it operates universal healthcare, they get treated. If a universal healthcare system turns away asylum seekers it should, logically, turn away holidaying foreigners or people on business trips as they are identical in it's eyes and if it does that it isn't universal. Not only that but it leaves a gaping void within which there is no healthcare available whether you plan to use it or not.
    Ok, we need to clarify what 'universal health care' is.

    According to wikipedia,

    Universal health care is a state in which all residents of a geographic or political region have access to most types of health care.

    According to campaigners for universal US health care,

    Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to high-quality health care.


    Anyway, this isn't really the point. Certainly I have little problem with people legally here (holiday makers, asylum seekers (assuming their case is pending or approved).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    Yeah, god damn them. Getting their forms in marginally quicker than us students...

    They should be treated the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you actually care that the typically destitute get their forms sent out marginally (as in, on average, less than a day) quicker than the typically middle class? Given that they don't get their applications processed any faster, I (even as a distinctly Liberal sort) couldn't give a hoot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    Do you actually care that the typically destitute get their forms sent out marginally (as in, on average, less than a day) quicker than the typically middle class? Given that they don't get their applications processed any faster, I (even as a distinctly Liberal sort) couldn't give a hoot.
    why should there be any difference?

    Its all academic anyway, these people should not be in the country, much less receiving anything from the taxpayer.:mad:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zebedee)
    why should there be any difference?

    Its all academic anyway, these people should not be in the country, much less receiving anything from the taxpayer.:mad:
    Hold on one second. Are you saying that asylum seekers should not be in Britain? Not failed asylum seekers but asylum seekers whose cases have not been heard yet. Should they pop down to their local British embassy and apply there and wait in whatever country they are in for a few months while the legal case works its way through the system hoping they aren't arrested, tortured and/or killed before then?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Hold on one second. Are you saying that asylum seekers should not be in Britain? Not failed asylum seekers but asylum seekers whose cases have not been heard yet. Should they pop down to their local British embassy and apply there and wait in whatever country they are in for a few months while the legal case works its way through the system hoping they aren't arrested, tortured and/or killed before then?
    Most of them shouldn't actually. Be mindful of the fact that only 17% of asylum applications are accepted - thus meaning that 83% of asylum seekers are "bogus" as far as the UK is concerned. Should the UK be treating people the vast majority of asylum seekers who in fact later found out to be being rather at odds with the truth?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    Yeah, god damn them. Getting their forms in marginally quicker than us students...
    I would imagine that getting one's form in is prerequisite to treatment isn't it. Would it not follow that the sooner your form is in the sooner you are treated?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Howard, you're talking common sense; a concept alien to paper pushers.
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.