Saving the NHS, a different way?

I hope you are speaking for yourself.

To save teh NHS what you do is not import people who have not paid in and whose susceptibility to various serious, and expensive to treat, conditions and diseases is much greater than the ethnic majority. This is common sense.

The idea may be right, it is the legal method within which it can be done that is the problem. This is not a problem for dictatorships but many other problems will be the price to pay.

Well it is clear there is a problem, Black and Asian more susceptible to Alzheimers, prostate cancer, Type 2 diabetes, heart conditions, other obesity problems. These are enormous costs in teh NHS accounting for well over 20% of the budget and drawing on the social welfare budget as well. These are just facts which any brief watch on TV will enlighten you and many studies and NHS advice. Alzheimers black people twice as likely and the same for prostate cancer, Type 2 diabetes black and Asian up to 6 times more likely, heart conditions at least three times more likely. If you want links to each I can provide but it is all out there in the public domain. If you import 100,000 young black and brown men, you are importing a significantly increased health risk.

I think it is you that has to check facts.


www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/11/dementia-risk-factors-pose-more-danger-for-ethnic-minorities-finds-study


The most common risk factors for dementia appear to have a more pronounced effect in black and Asian people, a study suggests, prompting calls for greater efforts to tackle health inequalities.
I am not saying my views are the norm I am saying it is idiotic to have a health service in crisis and import those with not just a poorer health regime in their own countries but who also have greater risk factors for  diseases and conditions that are both long term and expensive to treat.

Perhaps if you make a case that it is right and proper to do so it would help as opposed to making erroneous claims. As regards numbers being 'made up' you can peruse the following at your leisure.

"The Asian group shows the highest T2D prevalence (17·9%), followed by the Black (11·7%) and White (5·5%) ethnic groups."

www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00240-6/fulltext

You are also more at risk of CVD if you have diabetes or a family history of heart disease, if you are a smoker, or are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background

www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/clinical-policy/cvd/

As a rough guide if you bring in an extra 100,000 people you need an extra 12 doctor practices which may be an over 50 extra doctors, maybe another 100 dentists. If teh 100,000 is black and Asian and if you say 10% on average have issues if they were white, then you have an extra 15 to 20% who will have issues over and above that expected for a white population. Not to mention the incidence of diseases once eradicated from the UK like TB and  Rickets.
There is no balance as regards how to run a health service between the dept of health and any other dept. It is a ridiculous situation that borders on insanity.

The assumptions are based on the available data. White and Asian men have a 1 in 8 chance of prostate cancer, black men 1 in 4 chance. That is publicly available information used in advertising. Black and Asian have a significantly greater chance of developing Type 2 diabetes. Data publicly available. Black and South Asian men and women have an increased risk of heart attacks. 
These are publicly available facts.

If white issues, whatever they are, are more expensive then by all means supply some data to back that up. I have not even touched on cousin marriage and the genetic problems with that nor the high incidence of absentee fathers in the black community which leads to many problems that fall back on the NHS and social care.
To be clear I am NOT saying that we should treat people here differently, even though white people are treated differently, what I am saying is mass importation of greater levels of risk often combined with lower levels of heath regimes is not a good way to ensure adequate funding for teh health service and instead of seeking to administer health in a different way here by apportioning costs to British people, the best solution is to stop importation of greater risk. It is a common sense approach and eminently more fair on those who are, and have been, paying in.