Sounds sensible to me

Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers will be able to obtain free health care following a Government rethink, it has been announced.

Yes, yes, I know, Johnny Foreginer freeloading…..but there are public health implications. We do want everyone to get their vaccines, get treated for communicable diseases, don\’t we?

9 thoughts on “Sounds sensible to me”

  1. “We do want everyone to get their vaccines, get treated for communicable diseases, don’t we?”

    Would rather they stepped up the efforts to get them out of the country, rather than give in, frankly.

    If you reward bad behaviour, you just get more of it.

    And coming a day after it was mooted that we should all pay £20 to see our GP, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth…

  2. One feels that, as they are failed asylum seekers, it might be better when they turn up for their vaccines that they are put onto buses and taken to the airport…

  3. Being at least a somewhat compassionate man, I find this one very difficult. I don’t know if the newspaper’s figures are correct but, if so, failed asylum seekers represent 0.75% of the population.

    That is that around 133 of us each support in totality the living costs of 1 failed asylum seeker. More so, each 44 or so taxpayers share the responsibility of one each; likewise around 44 households (maybe we could directly share, and take ours home for 8 or 9 days per year). Furthermore, as I understand it, these people are not allowed to work to support themselves: are we barmy?

    On Tim’s point of their healthcare being necessary to reduce the risk of disease to the rest of us, OK: but is adding 20,000 out of 450,000 really going to make much difference. Better to vaccinate them against all the usual stuff, at a fraction of the average cost of full healthcare in the UK, and give them some minimal level of cover for emergencies. Surely their life expectancy and quality of life would then still be better than back in their own country; otherwise their case for asylum would be negligible rather than below the acceptance threshold.

    More broadly, the asylum issue strikes me as seriously contributed to by ourselves, and much amplified by our government. We live amongst the highest quality of life around, and forget that we and our forebears have, over centuries, earned this quality of life. It does not come from nowhere; giving it free to others not only takes from us (who might be able to afford it, at the margin), but it also corrupts and deprives those who want it without effort: on this look at the decline in relative living standards and good governance throughout much of the old British Empire (and certainly if excepting India) . We are also doubly cursed in this country. Firstly we speak that language (American or English) that is the lingua franca of the world, making ourselves an easier target home for everyone. Secondly, as part of the Anglosphere, we have a natural background of freedom for the individual (and let’s please leave the losses there over the last decade or so) and compassion for the underdog, so making our own consciences troublesome on this issue.

    Harsh though it may be, it is past time for us to view the full benefits of the welfare state as only available to British Citizens (with whatever complications the EU throws at us). Those accepted for asylum and other legal immigrants (temporary or permanent) should get less, until such time as they are accepted for citizenship; failed asylum seekers should get even less, pending their near-term repatriation or other departure.

    This is not unreasonable. Let us be Good Samaritans by all means, and take on the truly deserving cases, but let us avoid the pitfall of giving in to compassion exploitation.

    Best regards

  4. I’m always amused by the ability of people like Andrew Green to hold completely inconsistent propositions, such as:

    1) The NHS is a disaster zone that will surely kill you as soon as cure you;
    2) People are queueing up in France to come to the UK and take advantage of the NHS

  5. Its hardly inconsistent. Given the choice they may prefer to live in the UK, but get french healthcare. However, as that is not possible they make the trade off of living in the UK and putting up with the NHS.

  6. I often wonder why it is that we are paying for a vast army of ‘crats, yet none of them seem to be doing anything useful like checking visa applications, or repatriating illegals.

    They shouldn’t be here in the first place. We should be throwing them out, then there would be no argument about public health.

  7. @8 Ok, but it still needn’t be inconsistent. The NHS is free at the point of use (and so to a non-taxpayer free). The French system may well be much better and not cost the country as a whole anymore than the NHS, but if it is not not free at the point of use then to a non tax payer, it is far more expensive than the NHS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *