I've no more idea than anybody. But as the report says, a plausible explanation, is that we don't bother to charge, as has been said all along.
"One explanation for the gap is possibly that Britain has a poor record in recovering the cost of treating European nationals under the scheme. The DoH has said that the £30m figure may be less than 20% of the total estimated chargeable costs."
Or possibly that some of the bureaucrats in the NHS purged by the Government were the ones responsible for calculating and charging back the costs of treating the EU nationals?
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
£1.3m treating holidaymakers from Poland. I wonder how much of that was Legia fans needing their jaws reattached to their faces before they left Glasgow.
Seriously though, in Europe, apart from Ireland and possibly Denmark, the average Briton is more likely to visit Country X than the average Country X citizen is to visit the UK. I also thought the EHIC system guaranteed the same level of coverage as at home. So if the NHS offers more treatment as standard than another country the British tourists would be expensive to treat.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
Forgive if I've got this wrong because I'm not fully concentrating on it, but isnt the Guardian in its reporting comparing the impact of multi-country travellers on one country with the impact of one-country travellers on multi-countries? Isn't that two separate things ?
Isn't the Guardian trying to discredit claims of foreign impact on the NHS whilst at the same time the true figure may be five times its headline figure?
Owen Jones is such a smarmy twat. Can we leave him off this page please? We were doing so well.
Why has he not mentioned the benefits Britain issue which costs our economy millions a year with work shy lazy bastards sitting on their arse collecting their dosh funded by the hardworking worker. So sorry Owen, yes I do have a problem with benefit fraud.
Not performing in jobs that harder working people from the continent will sometimes do better and more efficiently.
He is a total twat. If you are going to take the focus away from immigration and speak about other issues, he can't just pick and choose what he wants.
Owen Jones is such a smarmy twat. Can we leave him off this page please? We were doing so well.
Why has he not mentioned the benefits Britain issue which costs our economy millions a year with work shy lazy bastards sitting on their arse collecting their dosh funded by the hardworking worker.
Not performing in jobs that harder working people from the continent will sometimes do better and more efficiently.
Owen Jones is such a smarmy twat. Can we leave him off this page please? We were doing so well.
Why has he not mentioned the benefits Britain issue which costs our economy millions a year with work shy lazy bastards sitting on their arse collecting their dosh funded by the hardworking worker.
Not performing in jobs that harder working people from the continent will sometimes do better and more efficiently.
He is a total twat.
I'd just like to say hard working people are idiots - unless they actually get a fair share of the fruits of their labour. Which currently in the uk they mostly don't.
Obviously a ridiculous argument by Owen Jones. Besides, how can a 15 year old be a politician?
This will go down badly but;
I don't think tax dodging wealthy individuals are the worst problem in the UK. In fact I'm sure the UK as a result of it all is quite an attractive place to be. I imagine the economic benefits of having such people here extend to people who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at the companies who dodge tax.
Immigration on the other hand has a direct effect on the poorest people within our community. The unskilled labour market is now even further saturated with people who are willing to work for the bare minimum. The poorer sectors of society who cannot afford to privately educate their children have schools which are at breaking point. Areas which have been on the end of mass immigration have hospitals which simply cannot handle the increased numbers of people.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
Obviously a ridiculous argument by Owen Jones. Besides, how can a 15 year old be a politician?
This will go down badly but;
I don't think tax dodging wealthy individuals are the worst problem in the UK. In fact I'm sure the UK as a result of it all is quite an attractive place to be. I imagine the economic benefits of having such people here extend to people who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at the companies who dodge tax.
Immigration on the other hand has a direct effect on the poorest people within our community. The unskilled labour market is now even further saturated with people who are willing to work for the bare minimum. The poorer sectors of society who cannot afford to privately educate their children have schools which are at breaking point. Areas which have been on the end of mass immigration have hospitals which simply cannot handle the increased numbers of people.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
Just because immigration bothers the average man more, doesn't mean it's a bigger problem.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
Just because immigration bothers the average man more, doesn't mean it's a bigger problem.
Well how does anyone measure the size of a problem. The size is different depending on who you ask
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
Forgive if I've got this wrong because I'm not fully concentrating on it, but isnt the Guardian in its reporting comparing the impact of multi-country travellers on one country with the impact of one-country travellers on multi-countries? Isn't that two separate things ?
Isn't the Guardian trying to discredit claims of foreign impact on the NHS whilst at the same time the true figure may be five times its headline figure?
Well, UKIP claim is that the UK taxpayer forks out for "health tourism", and then attempts to suggest that leaving the EU will stop this fork out, despite the evidence already existing that much health tourism (unpaid by the user) is enjoyed by non EU citizens.
So the figures, provided by the Government show that when it comes to "health tourism" ( a bit of a dodgy way to categorise a post pub injury, be it a Pole in Chatham or a Brit in Prague) Britain costs the EU more than the EU costs Britain. So leaving the EU would have no financial impact whatsoever on alleged costs pf health tourism.
There is still a lot of scope for further analysis of the figures but the newspaper has reported the available facts with absolute accuracy. The Department of Health has attempted to suggest that other factors might alter the figures, but totally failed to provide any factual evidence. That is their fault, and not the Guardian's.
It should also be remembered that the majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (state pension, attendance allowance, some disability living allowance, some housing benefit, some council tax benefit) rather than people who can work but don't.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
Just because immigration bothers the average man more, doesn't mean it's a bigger problem.
Well how does anyone measure the size of a problem. The size is different depending on who you ask
You'd make a good politician Prague because my little brain is sure you've not answered my questions there :-)
Honestly, not so. At least not intentionally. Large parts of my brain have been disabled by the M&S port that claims it must be drunk three months after opening...
I just think you shouldn't be so hard on the Guardian. You are both media owners, with dodgy offshore links :-)
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
You'd make a good politician Prague because my little brain is sure you've not answered my questions there :-)
Honestly, not so. At least not intentionally. Large parts of my brain have been disabled by the M&S port that claims it must be drunk three months after opening...
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
It should also be remembered that the majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (state pension, attendance allowance, some disability living allowance, some housing benefit, some council tax benefit) rather than people who can work but don't.
That tends to suggest that both are significant issues which cost the country billions. Why does it have to be that we deal with one or the other, why do we have to choose ?
Why don't we just deal with both and ensure that we are collecting the correct amount of revenue and paying out the correct amount of benefits.
It should also be remembered that the majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (state pension, attendance allowance, some disability living allowance, some housing benefit, some council tax benefit) rather than people who can work but don't.
That tends to suggest that both are significant issues which cost the country billions. Why does it have to be that we deal with one or the other, why do we have to choose ?
Why don't we just deal with both and ensure that we are collecting the correct amount of revenue and paying out the correct amount of benefits.
I have yet to see how we would reclaim the tax collected from these non doms UK earnings and spend from those that leave. And increase benefits and reduce tax to the lower paid.
It should also be remembered that the majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (state pension, attendance allowance, some disability living allowance, some housing benefit, some council tax benefit) rather than people who can work but don't.
That tends to suggest that both are significant issues which cost the country billions. Why does it have to be that we deal with one or the other, why do we have to choose ?
Why don't we just deal with both and ensure that we are collecting the correct amount of revenue and paying out the correct amount of benefits.
I have yet to see how we would reclaim the tax collected from these non doms UK earnings and spend from those that leave. And increase benefits and reduce tax to the lower paid.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
I don't know if I have missed something but doesn't raising the tax threshold benefit all tax payers equally? Or is there a mechanism in place that somehow circumvents this?
Obviously a ridiculous argument by Owen Jones. Besides, how can a 15 year old be a politician?
This will go down badly but;
I don't think tax dodging wealthy individuals are the worst problem in the UK. In fact I'm sure the UK as a result of it all is quite an attractive place to be. I imagine the economic benefits of having such people here extend to people who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at the companies who dodge tax.
Immigration on the other hand has a direct effect on the poorest people within our community. The unskilled labour market is now even further saturated with people who are willing to work for the bare minimum. The poorer sectors of society who cannot afford to privately educate their children have schools which are at breaking point. Areas which have been on the end of mass immigration have hospitals which simply cannot handle the increased numbers of people.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
I don't know if I have missed something but doesn't raising the tax threshold benefit all tax payers equally? Or is there a mechanism in place that somehow circumvents this?
Comments
It's not the report that's flaky.
Seriously though, in Europe, apart from Ireland and possibly Denmark, the average Briton is more likely to visit Country X than the average Country X citizen is to visit the UK. I also thought the EHIC system guaranteed the same level of coverage as at home. So if the NHS offers more treatment as standard than another country the British tourists would be expensive to treat.
Isn't the Guardian trying to discredit claims of foreign impact on the NHS whilst at the same time the true figure may be five times its headline figure?
Not performing in jobs that harder working people from the continent will sometimes do better and more efficiently.
He is a total twat. If you are going to take the focus away from immigration and speak about other issues, he can't just pick and choose what he wants.
This will go down badly but;
I don't think tax dodging wealthy individuals are the worst problem in the UK. In fact I'm sure the UK as a result of it all is quite an attractive place to be. I imagine the economic benefits of having such people here extend to people who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at the companies who dodge tax.
Immigration on the other hand has a direct effect on the poorest people within our community. The unskilled labour market is now even further saturated with people who are willing to work for the bare minimum. The poorer sectors of society who cannot afford to privately educate their children have schools which are at breaking point. Areas which have been on the end of mass immigration have hospitals which simply cannot handle the increased numbers of people.
So my point is ask the working class man what bothers him more. Mass immigration into his town or the owner of Starbucks not paying as much tax as he should.
So the figures, provided by the Government show that when it comes to "health tourism" ( a bit of a dodgy way to categorise a post pub injury, be it a Pole in Chatham or a Brit in Prague) Britain costs the EU more than the EU costs Britain. So leaving the EU would have no financial impact whatsoever on alleged costs pf health tourism.
There is still a lot of scope for further analysis of the figures but the newspaper has reported the available facts with absolute accuracy. The Department of Health has attempted to suggest that other factors might alter the figures, but totally failed to provide any factual evidence. That is their fault, and not the Guardian's.
This is a couple of years out of date, but is the most recent one with sourced data I can find (at the bottom of this page: https://fullfact.org/articles/tax_dodging_benefit_grabbing_graph-29041)
It should also be remembered that the majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (state pension, attendance allowance, some disability living allowance, some housing benefit, some council tax benefit) rather than people who can work but don't.
For sure, left or right
I just think you shouldn't be so hard on the Guardian. You are both media owners, with dodgy offshore links :-)
I always thought it was three hours.
Just highlighting the probable cost of a Labour coalition with SNP.
Why don't we just deal with both and ensure that we are collecting the correct amount of revenue and paying out the correct amount of benefits.
Where will the hole be filled from?
It was ever thus....