|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 28, 2023 19:02:37 GMT
No, the assumptions are that the costs will be the same percentage higher as the risk of illness. But I pointed out two variables without much thought. I don't think you can guess at the costs, can you research them? No. I'm not making the claim and I'm not appointed to prove you are wrong. Do your research get some real numbers. Please do, they probably add the same costs as the much vaunted rainbow crossings, but it would be interesting to see if you have anything more than "I think" You may have a point, be good to see any facts/ numbers to back that assumption up. To be clear I'm not saying there's nothing to see here, just don't know what that thing is. This is horses and water, it matters little what I post it still boils down to you just saying where is the proof, where are the numbers, what is the cost. I can tell you one thing, I had a small kidney stone a few years back and the consultant said teh cost to the NHS was £25K so specific types of problem have specific costs. Type 2 diabetes according to the NHS accounts for approx 10% of the whole budget, their estimate, their figures, their apportion of costs. If 100 extra people seek treatment one day then the black and Asian ones seeking treatment will be a higher proportion than there prevalence in the general population. Mny people place a great degree on fairness of representation, I do not, but it paints a picture. Still you are not really interested in saving the NHS money. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 19:15:04 GMT
This is horses and water, it matters little what I post it still boils down to you just saying where is the proof, where are the numbers, what is the cost. I can tell you one thing, I had a small kidney stone a few years back and the consultant said teh cost to the NHS was £25K so specific types of problem have specific costs. Type 2 diabetes according to the NHS accounts for approx 10% of the whole budget, their estimate, their figures, their apportion of costs. If 100 extra people seek treatment one day then the black and Asian ones seeking treatment will be a higher proportion than there prevalence in the general population. Mny people place a great degree on fairness of representation, I do not, but it paints a picture. Still you are not really interested in saving the NHS money. OMG. I ask you for evidence. How very dare I. This does not save the NHS money unless you are willing to expel people by race. Its historically interesting nothing more. I have already agreed we do not need to increase our population any further. The only difference on that between us is for me that means anyone, for you it means anyone not white. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2023 20:12:08 GMT
This is horses and water, it matters little what I post it still boils down to you just saying where is the proof, where are the numbers, what is the cost. I can tell you one thing, I had a small kidney stone a few years back and the consultant said teh cost to the NHS was £25K so specific types of problem have specific costs. Type 2 diabetes according to the NHS accounts for approx 10% of the whole budget, their estimate, their figures, their apportion of costs. If 100 extra people seek treatment one day then the black and Asian ones seeking treatment will be a higher proportion than there prevalence in the general population. Mny people place a great degree on fairness of representation, I do not, but it paints a picture. Still you are not really interested in saving the NHS money. OMG. I ask you for evidence. How very dare I. This does not save the NHS money unless you are willing to expel people by race. Its historically interesting nothing more. I have already agreed we do not need to increase our population any further. The only difference on that between us is for me that means anyone, for you it means anyone not white. I think Sandypine is correct, which is why you have responded with wild accusations of racism to shut down debate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 9:04:45 GMT
This is horses and water, it matters little what I post it still boils down to you just saying where is the proof, where are the numbers, what is the cost. I can tell you one thing, I had a small kidney stone a few years back and the consultant said teh cost to the NHS was £25K so specific types of problem have specific costs. Type 2 diabetes according to the NHS accounts for approx 10% of the whole budget, their estimate, their figures, their apportion of costs. If 100 extra people seek treatment one day then the black and Asian ones seeking treatment will be a higher proportion than there prevalence in the general population. Mny people place a great degree on fairness of representation, I do not, but it paints a picture. Still you are not really interested in saving the NHS money. OMG. I ask you for evidence. How very dare I. This does not save the NHS money unless you are willing to expel people by race. Its historically interesting nothing more. I have already agreed we do not need to increase our population any further. The only difference on that between us is for me that means anyone, for you it means anyone not white. I repeat ad nauseum I have not said we must treat anyone here any differently, that includes white people. What I am saying is what 'we' have done is allowed a stupid influx of many people, easily defined by colour, from poorer health regimes and with a greater risk of many conditions and diseases that seriously impact the health service. I have presented so much evidence that this is the case that asking for more seems at best churlish and at worst... The topic is saving the NHS a different way. In order to be fair to those here and who have paid in then exclusion of those not currently here seems to be a pretty good argument. If we do invite others in then at least we should be prepared to recognise the risks that any one group poses to the rest of us and specifically its effect on the NHS. These are just uncomfortable facts. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 9:17:19 GMT
OMG. I ask you for evidence. How very dare I. This does not save the NHS money unless you are willing to expel people by race. Its historically interesting nothing more. I have already agreed we do not need to increase our population any further. The only difference on that between us is for me that means anyone, for you it means anyone not white. I repeat ad nauseum I have not said we must treat anyone here any differently, that includes white people. What I am saying is what 'we' have done is allowed a stupid influx of many people, easily defined by colour, from poorer health regimes and with a greater risk of many conditions and diseases that seriously impact the health service. I have presented so much evidence that this is the case that asking for more seems at best churlish and at worst... The topic is saving the NHS a different way. In order to be fair to those here and who have paid in then exclusion of those not currently here seems to be a pretty good argument. If we do invite others in then at least we should be prepared to recognise the risks that any one group poses to the rest of us and specifically its effect on the NHS. These are just uncomfortable facts. Lucky break those with poorer health regimes just happen to be a funny colour. Will your immigration exclusions also include people with disabilities or Anxiety or migraines? How about Epilepsy? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 16:00:27 GMT
I repeat ad nauseum I have not said we must treat anyone here any differently, that includes white people. What I am saying is what 'we' have done is allowed a stupid influx of many people, easily defined by colour, from poorer health regimes and with a greater risk of many conditions and diseases that seriously impact the health service. I have presented so much evidence that this is the case that asking for more seems at best churlish and at worst... The topic is saving the NHS a different way. In order to be fair to those here and who have paid in then exclusion of those not currently here seems to be a pretty good argument. If we do invite others in then at least we should be prepared to recognise the risks that any one group poses to the rest of us and specifically its effect on the NHS. These are just uncomfortable facts. Lucky break those with poorer health regimes just happen to be a funny colour. Will your immigration exclusions also include people with disabilities or Anxiety or migraines? How about Epilepsy? You are looking to save the NHS, why bring in the ill to clog the system. It makes no sense. We cannot save all the invalids on the planet, we have banded together to save all those in this country. Is this fair, for the people in the UK of course it is. What else do you suggest? You seem to be saying you will accept anyone who is ill or disabled, te idea of immigration was to allow in 'those we need'. Need has to include all negatives as well as the positives. As regards poorer health regimes. It is hardly the fault of the UK populace that the rest of the world run health systems at odds with caring for their population. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 17:05:06 GMT
Lucky break those with poorer health regimes just happen to be a funny colour. Will your immigration exclusions also include people with disabilities or Anxiety or migraines? How about Epilepsy? You are looking to save the NHS, why bring in the ill to clog the system. It makes no sense. We cannot save all the invalids on the planet, we have banded together to save all those in this country. Is this fair, for the people in the UK of course it is. What else do you suggest? You seem to be saying you will accept anyone who is ill or disabled, te idea of immigration was to allow in 'those we need'. Need has to include all negatives as well as the positives. As regards poorer health regimes. It is hardly the fault of the UK populace that the rest of the world run health systems at odds with caring for their population. So a brilliant professor of genetics is banned because he has Epilepsy and might cost the NHS more? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 17:16:09 GMT
You are looking to save the NHS, why bring in the ill to clog the system. It makes no sense. We cannot save all the invalids on the planet, we have banded together to save all those in this country. Is this fair, for the people in the UK of course it is. What else do you suggest? You seem to be saying you will accept anyone who is ill or disabled, te idea of immigration was to allow in 'those we need'. Need has to include all negatives as well as the positives. As regards poorer health regimes. It is hardly the fault of the UK populace that the rest of the world run health systems at odds with caring for their population. So a brilliant professor of genetics is banned because he has Epilepsy and might cost the NHS more? Do you understand the the words 'need has to include all negatives as well as positives.' It is a balance that may allow a 'brilliant professor' in, or may not, but exclude someone who will clean for Lucinda in Chelsea. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 17:23:36 GMT
So a brilliant professor of genetics is banned because he has Epilepsy and might cost the NHS more? Do you understand the the words 'need has to include all negatives as well as positives.' It is a balance that may allow a 'brilliant professor' in, or may not, but exclude someone who will clean for Lucinda in Chelsea. Oh yes I understand. So how do you know the child with epilepsy wont become the brilliant professor of genetics? Or more importantly that the Black guy with no apparent illness might be a brilliant doctor, who you banned just because he is slightly more likely to have an illness that costs the NHS money. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 17:49:26 GMT
Do you understand the the words 'need has to include all negatives as well as positives.' It is a balance that may allow a 'brilliant professor' in, or may not, but exclude someone who will clean for Lucinda in Chelsea. Oh yes I understand. So how do you know the child with epilepsy wont become the brilliant professor of genetics? Or more importantly that the Black guy with no apparent illness might be a brilliant doctor, who you banned just because he is slightly more likely to have an illness that costs the NHS money. We do not, just as we do not know many things that require a crystal ball, all I am stating is the risks involved, and the direct costs involved if one does not consider balancing the pros and cons. We cannot afford a World Health Service as it is described as a National Health Service to indicate its limited scope. EDIT I refute the slightly. Prostate cancer is twice, type 2 diabetes is at least three times more likely than. For prostate cancer it is one in eight white men and one in four black men so if you have 64 white men and 36 black men you will have 8 cases in the white group and 9 in the black group |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 17:56:45 GMT
Oh yes I understand. So how do you know the child with epilepsy wont become the brilliant professor of genetics? Or more importantly that the Black guy with no apparent illness might be a brilliant doctor, who you banned just because he is slightly more likely to have an illness that costs the NHS money. We do not, just as we do not know many things that require a crystal ball, all I am stating is the risks involved, and the direct costs involved if one does not consider balancing the pros and cons. We cannot afford a World Health Service as it is described as a National Health Service to indicate its limited scope. Not everything can be judged by averaging risks. Didn't the Nazis have a similar idea to yours, to remove or sterilise the imperfect. I think the overall effect on the population is detrimental. With everyone wondering if they're next or their child might be. Your world health service is nonsense. No one is suggesting it, just that those invited to live here be not judged on their potential to get ill. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 29, 2023 17:58:48 GMT
Nobody is talking about exterminating doctors
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 18:05:01 GMT
We do not, just as we do not know many things that require a crystal ball, all I am stating is the risks involved, and the direct costs involved if one does not consider balancing the pros and cons. We cannot afford a World Health Service as it is described as a National Health Service to indicate its limited scope. Not everything can be judged by averaging risks. Didn't the Nazis have a similar idea to yours, to remove or sterilise the imperfect. I think the overall effect on the population is detrimental. With everyone wondering if they're next or their child might be. Your world health service is nonsense. No one is suggesting it, just that those invited to live here be not judged on their potential to get ill. I am not asking to remove anyone I am pointing out that health should be an important factor in immigration. What do you mean they are next or their child might be? Are you saying we should ignore health for immigration? On rereading your answer you are saying that health and its risks should be ignored. No borders seem to be demanding it is a world health service. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 20:07:36 GMT
Nobody is talking about exterminating doctors No one said they were. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 20:14:56 GMT
Not everything can be judged by averaging risks. Didn't the Nazis have a similar idea to yours, to remove or sterilise the imperfect. I think the overall effect on the population is detrimental. With everyone wondering if they're next or their child might be. Your world health service is nonsense. No one is suggesting it, just that those invited to live here be not judged on their potential to get ill. I am not asking to remove anyone I am pointing out that health should be an important factor in immigration. What do you mean they are next or their child might be? Are you saying we should ignore health for immigration? On rereading your answer you are saying that health and its risks should be ignored. No borders seem to be demanding it is a world health service. I appreciate that, but by preventing that young black man from coming into the country because he may later cost more to the NHS than a white person, we also risk losing a brilliant doctor. We also send a message to the existing Black folks living here that would have very detrimental effects. No borders are not a broadly supported group, neither are they realistic in their belief the world can be equalled out. |
|
