This Farage Immigrants with HIV Business This Farage Immigrants with HIV Business - Page 5
Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Posts 41 to 50 of 237
  1. #41

    Godlike

    ASB has more data than eek


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    Lifetime treatment is a major issue for cost. A lot of expensive treatments are often for limited durations.

    In my case my drugs alone are approx 120k. There is also 24 treatment days and about the same in follow ups and constant monitoring.

    By the time I shuffle off mortal coil about 3m will have been spent on my healthcare.

    I think it is fair to assume that anybody with a chronic condition is unlikely to pay enough in to cover their costs. But isnt the point of any insurance system - even when operated by government - to spread the load?

    Certainly health tourism increases that load. But I doubt it is to a significant extent.

    clamping down could also increase costs to society through the spread of disease that would otherwise be at least partially curtailed.

  2. #42

    More time posting than coding

    Euler is too good to be a permie


    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ASB View Post
    In my case my drugs alone are approx 120k. There is also 24 treatment days and about the same in follow ups and constant monitoring.
    .
    I'm sorry to hear you need to have constant treatment - may I ask what it's for?
    A European (aka French and German) model wouldn't preclude you from this treatment, unlike a pre-Obamacare US model which would bankrupt you.
    In fact healthcare costs are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, but it's likely that the NHS will lead to national bankruptcy in the long run if not reformed.

  3. #43

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,947

    Default

    There are indeed big variations in assessment of costs. Most reputable looking study I can find is a 2011 study that puts the estimated total cost of HIV, including care costs, at over £1bn by 2013.

    HIV & AIDS Information :: Annual UK HIV treatment and care costs could reach £750 million by 2013

    About 38% were black African in 2008 according to NICE. (Link disappeared)

    I think the principal issue here is not so much the current cost but the astonishing rate at which it is rising. We have the fastest growing rate in Europe, up 460% in 9 years from 1997 to 2006 and this correlates to increase in migrants from sub Saharan countries. Whether it's £0.4bn or £1.1bn, if we do nothing and we get this rate of increase every 9 years the costs won't be quite so "negligible" anymore.
    Last edited by xoggoth; 7th April 2015 at 10:46.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

  4. #44

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,947

    Default

    clamping down could also increase costs to society through the spread of disease that would otherwise be at least partially curtailed
    Yes, but nobody is suggesting refusing treatment to UK citizens, just refusing entry to non citizens who have HIV or other costly/dangerous illnesses.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

  5. #45

    My post count is Majestic

    vetran has reached the peak. Play again?

    vetran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Come Friendly Bombs
    Posts
    35,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Euler View Post
    Estimates of the TOTAL cost of health tourism, including HIV treatment i.e. treating people who shouldn't be entitled to treatment, range from 79 million (academic research) to 2 billion (Daily Mail claim).
    Even if we take the (probably wildly inflated) Dail Mail claim as being true, this is not a significant figure in the context of the NHS budget.
    However going to an insurance-based European model would solve that problem as well as other more fundamental problems with the NHS, but the British public seems to be wedded to the increasingly unsustainable funded at source model and no party wants to tackle the issue.
    as has been demonstrated again and again the government have absolutely no idea how many people are accessing the NHS and are not entitled to it. This is especially so in the emergency care.
    "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

    I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

  6. #46

    More time posting than coding

    Euler is too good to be a permie


    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xoggoth View Post
    There are indeed big variations in assessment of costs. Most reputable looking study I can find is a 2011 study that puts the estimated total cost of HIV, including care costs, at over £1bn by 2013.

    HIV & AIDS Information :: Annual UK HIV treatment and care costs could reach £750 million by 2013

    I think the principal issue here is not so much the current cost but the astonishing rate at which it is rising. We have the fastest growing rate in Europe, up 460% in 9 years from 1997 to 2006 and this correlates to increase in migrants from sub Saharan countries. If we do nothing and we get this rate of increase every 9 years the costs won't be quite so "negligible" anymore.
    A few points:

    1. "Could reach £750 million" is not equal to "over 1 billion".
    2. That is the total cost for all HIV treatment - probably half that is for the foreign born i.e. about 375 million. This is a drop in the ocean of the NHS budget.
    3. Currently the BMA thinks that putting into place a system to administer and stop health tourism would cost more than the savings.
    4. The coalition government thinks that not treating any resident of the UK with HIV would result in MORE costs to the taxpayer in the long run.
    5. While those costs are rising, the REAL exponential rise in costs is due to treating the increasing number of old people who are kept alive by the success of the pharma industry - the statins, anti-diabetics and so on that keep people alive who would have died 30 years ago.

    I do health economics for a living and all the models I've seen show the NHS to be unsustainable 30 years from now on the current model. This is not however due to the relatively minor issue of health tourism but due to the ageing of the population.

  7. #47

    Godlike

    ASB has more data than eek


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Euler View Post
    I'm sorry to hear you need to have constant treatment - may I ask what it's for?
    A European (aka French and German) model wouldn't preclude you from this treatment, unlike a pre-Obamacare US model which would bankrupt you.
    In fact healthcare costs are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, but it's likely that the NHS will lead to national bankruptcy in the long run if not reformed.
    Myasthenia gravis. I am treated with 6 weekly infusions of immuno globulin. I believe that something in the order of 300 people are treated in this way.

    edit: having found a report on nhs costing I may be as expensive to look after as I thought. My basis was original treatment paid for by my insurers. The chared was approx 900 for each of the 15 bottles. The usage report seems to suggest current nhs costs are abot 500.
    Last edited by ASB; 7th April 2015 at 11:06.

  8. #48

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,947

    Default

    A few points:

    1. "Could reach £750 million" is not equal to "over 1 billion".
    2. That is the total cost for all HIV treatment - probably half that is for the foreign born i.e. about 375 million. This is a drop in the ocean of the NHS budget.
    3. Currently the BMA thinks that putting into place a system to administer and stop health tourism would cost more than the savings.
    4. The coalition government thinks that not treating any resident of the UK with HIV would result in MORE costs to the taxpayer in the long run.
    5. While those costs are rising, the REAL exponential rise in costs is due to treating the increasing number of old people who are kept alive by the success of the pharma industry - the statins, anti-diabetics and so on that keep people alive who would have died 30 years ago.

    1 You obviously did not read the link. £758 does not include social care which takes it "well over £1bn" (their words not mine)

    2 £375m is not currently a huge percent of NHS spending but immigration from Africa is increasing that figure significantly year on year. In 2006 the proportion of those born in sub-Saharan Africa with HIV was 50 times that of whites.
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn297.pdf

    3 A general system to administer and stop health tourism will include all sort of problems and that assessment is not necessarily valid for each problem. HIV is a particularly expensive one. Many nations, including Australia, seem to find it is worthwhile. Australia has the lowest rate of HIV in the world.

    4 Yes but that is only because the coalition government thinks that not treating those with HIV who are already in the UK would result in them not reporting symptoms. I am not suggesting that but testing before entry and refusing visas if positive, so that argument does not apply.

    5 This is that typical non sequitur argument employed by liberals. Yes, of course we have many problems in the UK including an ageing population, but how is that any argument in favour of taking on yet more problems that we do not need to have? Actually, unrestricted immigration from developing countries is increasing the ageing population problem because so many minorities have poorer health than the UK average and will remain in work for less time.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

  9. #49

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,947

    Default

    A few points:

    1. "Could reach £750 million" is not equal to "over 1 billion".
    2. That is the total cost for all HIV treatment - probably half that is for the foreign born i.e. about 375 million. This is a drop in the ocean of the NHS budget.
    3. Currently the BMA thinks that putting into place a system to administer and stop health tourism would cost more than the savings.
    4. The coalition government thinks that not treating any resident of the UK with HIV would result in MORE costs to the taxpayer in the long run.
    5. While those costs are rising, the REAL exponential rise in costs is due to treating the increasing number of old people who are kept alive by the success of the pharma industry - the statins, anti-diabetics and so on that keep people alive who would have died 30 years ago.

    1 You obviously did not read the link. £758 does not include social care which takes it "well over 1000 million" (their words not mine)

    2 £375m is not currently a huge percent of NHS spending but immigration from Africa is increasing that figure significantly year on year. In 2006 the proportion of those born in sub-Saharan Africa with HIV was 50 times that of whites.
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn297.pdf

    3 A general system to administer and stop health tourism will include all sort of problems and that assessment is not necessarily valid for each problem. HIV is a particularly expensive one. Many nations, including Australia, seem to find it is worthwhile. Australia has the lowest rate of HIV in the world.

    4 Yes but that is only because the coalition government thinks that not treating those with HIV who are already in the UK would result in them not reporting symptoms. I am not suggesting that but testing before entry and refusing visas if positive, so that argument does not apply.

    5 This is that typical non sequitur argument employed by liberals. Yes, of course we have many problems in the UK including an ageing population, but how is that any argument in favour of taking on yet more problems that we do not need to have? Actually, unrestricted immigration from developing countries is increasing the ageing population problem because so many minorities have poorer health than the UK average and will remain in work for less time.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

  10. #50

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,947

    Default

    Of course one can make these sort of "drop in the ocean" comments about so many costs of immigrants, HIV, numerous other health problems, crime, begging, terrorism, extremism, poor English, FGM, forced marriage etc, etc but they all add up.

    The essential point is that any migrant who is not a significant net asset to the UK should not be here.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •