egafd.com

[quote]> That doesn't answer my question.
>
> Surely the most important thing to all of us, regardless of
> social status, sex, race, sexuality or age, is our health.

Yes to us, not foreigners.[/quote]

What are you talking about? Are you saying the importance of a person's health is determined by nationality?

[quote]> Surely then, we, as a 'civilised society' can team up with
> other civilised societies and provide free healthcare across
> our borders for those that need it. What can be more civilised
> than that?

Because it's the National Health Service not the International Health Service.[/quote]

Reread the sentence you quoted from me. I'm talking about providing healthcare across borders. That includes Brits abroad (like you visiting an EEA country). Your answer to what you quoted from me doesn't make sense. I'm also asking what could be more civilised than providing free health care for all between countries who join together in this (like the EEA).

[quote]It's not like people purposely break there legs to take
> advantage of the NHS.....jeez.
>
Perhaps not but they do purposely come here to give birth and take advantage of the NHS, a system to which they have contributed not one brass farthing.[/quote]

Like who? Who's coming here just to give birth only to piss off again? Surely the travels costs for the individual would mean it wasn't really worth it unless their lives were in danger.

Erm no.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]> That doesn't answer my question.
> >
> > Surely the most important thing to all of us, regardless of
> > social status, sex, race, sexuality or age, is our health.
>
> Yes to us, not foreigners.[/quote]
>
> What are you talking about? Are you saying the importance of a
> person's health is determined by nationality?

Yes. Why do you think the media flag up stories when Britons are injured/killed and ignore foreigners?

>
> [quote]> Surely then, we, as a 'civilised society' can team up
> with
> > other civilised societies and provide free healthcare across
> > our borders for those that need it. What can be more
> civilised
> > than that?
>
> Because it's the National Health Service not the International
> Health Service.[/quote]
>
> Reread the sentence you quoted from me. I'm talking about
> providing healthcare across borders. That includes Brits abroad
> (like you visiting an EEA country). Your answer to what you
> quoted from me doesn't make sense. I'm also asking what could
> be more civilised than providing free health care for all
> between countries who join together in this (like the EEA).

I don't visit EEA countries. I haven't visited a European country since 2002. I go to Africa or USA.

>
> [quote]It's not like people purposely break there legs to take
> > advantage of the NHS.....jeez.
> >
> Perhaps not but they do purposely come here to give birth and
> take advantage of the NHS, a system to which they have
> contributed not one brass farthing.[/quote]
>
> Like who? Who's coming here just to give birth only to piss off
> again? Surely the travels costs for the individual would mean
> it wasn't really worth it unless their lives were in danger.
>
Like these for a start:

Course he does..........he rows his own boat doesn't he? If he's not rich enough to pay for 24 hour security, it's his own fault for not earning and saving enough in his lifetime, right? It's his fault.

What's the difference in having private health care and private security?

[quote]Yes. Why do you think the media flag up stories when Britons are injured/killed and ignore foreigners?[/quote]

Jesus christ, man. When I'm talking about the importance of health, I mean to each individual.....not the British media. Your health is as important to you as a random Australian's health is to them. Get it?

[quote]I don't visit EEA countries.[/quote]

Never asked if you did. Lots do, and if rich, developed countries can't club together and give each other's citizens a decent level of free health care, what's the point of being rich and developed?

[quote]Like these for a start:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rists.html[/quote]

Doesn't really give a definite figure about the numbers. 300 stopped in over 2 years isn't that many. Given 800,000 people gave birth in the UK in 2013, if 150 a year got through immigration that would equate to <0.02% of all births a year. I mean.....given the cost of the flight to get here and because pregnancies aren't usually long-term stays in hospital, I'm guessing these African mothers are probably trying to give their children a better chance of surviving rather than solely trying to save money.

Apparently costs around ?80m a year......or just over a quid a year for each person. I'd pay a quid a year for a few Africans to have safer births. It's it's about the price of a mars bar and a little pack of tic tacs.

same hymn sheet...

frankthring wrote:

> Successive Govts fuck
> with it, the
> benefits that Lord Beveridge wanted us all to enjoy get
> whittled away

I think you need to check your history.

Beveridge wanted social insurance, not socialism. His blueprint, the great reformer wrote in 1942, ?is not one for giving to everybody something for nothing and without trouble? but to demand ?contributions in return for benefits?.

Tell that to Lily Dove, 95.



Okay so it's the Daily Mail and Richard Littlejohn but no one has denied the story.

Above Sam Slater says that he would be happy to pay a pound for African women to come over here and have their babies courtesy of the NHS, a system to which they have not contributed one dinar or cedi.

Perhaps if those women stayed in their own countries Mrs Dove would not have to travel miles to a new GP surgery to make way for eastern Europeans... and Sam could pay his pound for Mrs Dove.

Well when you put it like that I suppose you're right.

Fuck him.

And as Cuntybollocks says above.........you row your own boat in life. Lily Dove should have earned more money in her 95 years of life and got herself a cushty private plan. It's her own fault, right?

I take it you agree with Cuntybollock's views on this given you haven't dissagreed with him.

I haven't looked at the posts since no one bothered to comment on my point about Beveridge not wanting benefits for all but a system where everyone contributed.

Hang on... I will open in another window.

Okay, back. No he's talking bollocks.