|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 22:50:47 GMT
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. We risk losing a brilliant doctor irrespective of to whom we deny access; equally they could turn out to be violent criminals, shall we discuss risk factors there? All I have said is if the NHS is suffering then it makes no sense whatsoever to bring in large numbers of people who come from poorer health regimes and whose risks of significant health issues, expensive to treat in the short and long term, makes no financial sense at all. If you can argue that it does by all means do but you seem intent to say we are blocking brilliant doctors which I have not said we should do and now you say it is blocking potential brilliant doctors which of course any limitation of immigrants will undoubtedly do probably to an insignificant degree. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 10:26:29 GMT
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. We risk losing a brilliant doctor irrespective of to whom we deny access; equally they could turn out to be violent criminals, shall we discuss risk factors there? All I have said is if the NHS is suffering then it makes no sense whatsoever to bring in large numbers of people who come from poorer health regimes and whose risks of significant health issues, expensive to treat in the short and long term, makes no financial sense at all. If you can argue that it does by all means do but you seem intent to say we are blocking brilliant doctors which I have not said we should do and now you say it is blocking potential brilliant doctors which of course any limitation of immigrants will undoubtedly do probably to an insignificant degree. Well no. I was under the impression you were going to judge this just on health risk? Known criminals are banned anyway, so that's a red herring. Who becomes a criminal is anyones guess and more to do with circumstance after they arrive. Who becomes an asset to the country can be determined by what skill set they bring and what intelligence they show. Your proposal to blanket ban higher health risk migrants does not take this into account. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 16:11:00 GMT
We risk losing a brilliant doctor irrespective of to whom we deny access; equally they could turn out to be violent criminals, shall we discuss risk factors there? All I have said is if the NHS is suffering then it makes no sense whatsoever to bring in large numbers of people who come from poorer health regimes and whose risks of significant health issues, expensive to treat in the short and long term, makes no financial sense at all. If you can argue that it does by all means do but you seem intent to say we are blocking brilliant doctors which I have not said we should do and now you say it is blocking potential brilliant doctors which of course any limitation of immigrants will undoubtedly do probably to an insignificant degree. Well no. I was under the impression you were going to judge this just on health risk? Known criminals are banned anyway, so that's a red herring. Who becomes a criminal is anyones guess and more to do with circumstance after they arrive. Who becomes an asset to the country can be determined by what skill set they bring and what intelligence they show. Your proposal to blanket ban higher health risk migrants does not take this into account. It would be nice if you actually took account and understood what I have said, I suppose that is the name of the debating game, answer the points not raised and accuse the other of things he has not demanded. One more time for luck. It makes no sense in terms of saving the NHS to bring in large numbers of people from poorer health regimes and whose risk of developing expensive diseases is greater than the current population. This is not banning anyone or any group it is just applying common sense to the pros and cons of accepting any individual or any group of immigrants. If ten doctors apply from South Asia, well and good, if ten commis chefs apply then we need to be circumspect. Health risk should be a factor in considering immigration. Not the sole consideration as I have kept on saying but a factor in determining from whence we draw from those who wish to come here. So far so good. Anyone can become a criminal so according to you any pre-selection will not have any effect just as no preselection will have no effect. What skill set they bring and what intelligence they show is rarely judged to any great degree unless it is highly skilled people and those seem to be a small fraction of the influx. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 16:54:51 GMT
Well no. I was under the impression you were going to judge this just on health risk? Known criminals are banned anyway, so that's a red herring. Who becomes a criminal is anyones guess and more to do with circumstance after they arrive. Who becomes an asset to the country can be determined by what skill set they bring and what intelligence they show. Your proposal to blanket ban higher health risk migrants does not take this into account. Yes it would be nice. It would also be nice if you didn't assume different meanings to my words. I can't see anything I can add. If you decide not to invite people from a certain area based on one criteria only (future health) then you naturally exclude many that would bring great benefit to the country. This seems so simple and obvious to me, I struggle to break it down any further for you to grasp. Thank you. So you are not applying one criteria only. You are including future health as part of a scoring system for entry. You haven't said this once until now. Its why I answered as I did. So the only bit it leaves undiscussed is the effect on those already living here. When a Black Commis chef got refused on the grounds that they might cost extra money in health cover in the future, what message do you think Black people in the UK would take from that? When a white person heard there son had been refused a position as a police officer because it was felt that they might get a better outcome having more black officers, would you take that on face value or assume some prejudice? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 17:09:49 GMT
Yes it would be nice. It would also be nice if you didn't assume different meanings to my words. I can't see anything I can add. If you decide not to invite people from a certain area based on one criteria only (future health) then you naturally exclude many that would bring great benefit to the country. This seems so simple and obvious to me, I struggle to break it down any further for you to grasp. Thank you. So you are not applying one criteria only. You are including future health as part of a scoring system for entry. You haven't said this once until now. Its why I answered as I did. So the only bit it leaves undiscussed is the effect on those already living here. When a Black Commis chef got refused on the grounds that they might cost extra money in health cover in the future, what message do you think Black people in the UK would take from that? When a white person heard there son had been refused a position as a police officer because it was felt that they might get a better outcome having more black officers, would you take that on face value or assume some prejudice? I said it more than once and I quote "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." No one seems to think that positive action will affect white people negatively so why should anyone here be upset. I repeat, yet again, this is not to treat anyone here differently. Maybe we should just treat all people here exactly the same, as i have often said. It is our choice who comes into the country or do you think that choise does not belong to us all. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 18:19:49 GMT
I said it more than once and I quote "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." No one seems to think that positive action will affect white people negatively so why should anyone here be upset. I repeat, yet again, this is not to treat anyone here differently. Maybe we should just treat all people here exactly the same, as i have often said. It is our choice who comes into the country or do you think that choise does not belong to us all. Then apologies, I misunderstood your position. Maybe it was your focus on Blacks and Asians that 'triggered' me knowing your dislike of them in every other field. Does any other country consider future health when considering immigration? Maybe other countries should consider UK's prevalence of obesity and our excessive drinking. Its a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 18:35:00 GMT
I said it more than once and I quote "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." No one seems to think that positive action will affect white people negatively so why should anyone here be upset. I repeat, yet again, this is not to treat anyone here differently. Maybe we should just treat all people here exactly the same, as i have often said. It is our choice who comes into the country or do you think that choise does not belong to us all. Then apologies, I misunderstood your position. Maybe it was your focus on Blacks and Asians that 'triggered' me knowing your dislike of them in every other field. Does any other country consider future health when considering immigration? Maybe other countries should consider UK's prevalence of obesity and our excessive drinking. Its a thought. That was a throwaway comment that is rather insulting in your second sentence. I have no idea what other countries consider, why is that important. What British people do and its effect on the NHS is back to the first premise which revolves around making people who do not follow advice pay for treatment. I was pointing out that there are many situations whereby British people could improve their health but in the first instance it is idiotic to bring in large numbers of those whose health is initially poor and whose risks of poor health at a later date are significantly greater than the average of the population already here even taking into account obesity and heavy drinking. The point as always is we have our own existing problems, why increase them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 18:59:35 GMT
Then apologies, I misunderstood your position. Maybe it was your focus on Blacks and Asians that 'triggered' me knowing your dislike of them in every other field. Does any other country consider future health when considering immigration? Maybe other countries should consider UK's prevalence of obesity and our excessive drinking. Its a thought. That was a throwaway comment that is rather insulting in your second sentence. I have no idea what other countries consider, why is that important. What British people do and its effect on the NHS is back to the first premise which revolves around making people who do not follow advice pay for treatment. I was pointing out that there are many situations whereby British people could improve their health but in the first instance it is idiotic to bring in large numbers of those whose health is initially poor and whose risks of poor health at a later date are significantly greater than the average of the population already here even taking into account obesity and heavy drinking. The point as always is we have our own existing problems, why increase them. Your history dictates how I see you. Why is it important what other countries do? Because if none do there's usually a reason. But also to say be careful what you wish for lest comes to get you. The rest of your posts is rinse repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 30, 2023 19:36:05 GMT
We risk losing a brilliant doctor irrespective of to whom we deny access; equally they could turn out to be violent criminals, shall we discuss risk factors there? All I have said is if the NHS is suffering then it makes no sense whatsoever to bring in large numbers of people who come from poorer health regimes and whose risks of significant health issues, expensive to treat in the short and long term, makes no financial sense at all. If you can argue that it does by all means do but you seem intent to say we are blocking brilliant doctors which I have not said we should do and now you say it is blocking potential brilliant doctors which of course any limitation of immigrants will undoubtedly do probably to an insignificant degree. Your proposal to blanket ban higher health risk migrants does not take this into account. If the choice is a blanket ban or being swamped by a endless stream of liability and cost, the blanket ban is the better option. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 20:18:39 GMT
That was a throwaway comment that is rather insulting in your second sentence. I have no idea what other countries consider, why is that important. What British people do and its effect on the NHS is back to the first premise which revolves around making people who do not follow advice pay for treatment. I was pointing out that there are many situations whereby British people could improve their health but in the first instance it is idiotic to bring in large numbers of those whose health is initially poor and whose risks of poor health at a later date are significantly greater than the average of the population already here even taking into account obesity and heavy drinking. The point as always is we have our own existing problems, why increase them. Your history dictates how I see you. Why is it important what other countries do? Because if none do there's usually a reason. But also to say be careful what you wish for lest comes to get you. The rest of your posts is rinse repeat. No , in the kindest interpretation I can find it is your perception of my history that dictates how you see me. In that history there is no evidence of what you have said other than my strong disagreement with the positive action and critical race theories popular with many on the left. If a black man is concerned about what he sees as discrimination against black men and speaks out about it then would you consider he hates white people? If a white man is concerned about discrimination against white people it certainly seems you consider he hates black and brown people. This is distinct racism on your part. The rest of my post addressed your comment on obesity and drinking and why those currently here are our problem and those currently wishing to come here are not and should not come here if they represent any form of extra risk to ourselves with no compensatory benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 20:24:43 GMT
There, Orac fills the gap for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 20:32:17 GMT
There, Orac fills the gap for you. That seems like a sensible opinion. If the choices were as he indicates which would you favour? Remember he stated a choice between two scenarios so waffling in the middle is not an option. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 30, 2023 21:16:32 GMT
There, Orac fills the gap for you. That seems like a sensible opinion. If the choices were as he indicates which would you favour? Remember he stated a choice between two scenarios so waffling in the middle is not an option. Sophie's choice. How appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 30, 2023 22:04:32 GMT
That seems like a sensible opinion. If the choices were as he indicates which would you favour? Remember he stated a choice between two scenarios so waffling in the middle is not an option. Sophie's choice. How appropriate. That was the scenario created by Orac which you felt compelled to use as an illustration of your perception of my views. At least have the decency to consider the choice being faced so let us consider what Orac actually said which was "If the choice is a blanket ban or being swamped by a endless stream of liability and cost, the blanket ban is the better option." So what would you do in that situation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2023 10:05:14 GMT
I liked the earlier fascist suggestion that unvaccinated people should not be treated.
It should go alongside other fascist suggestions that cigarette smokers, alcohol users, tattoos and piercings gone wrong, drug addicts, suicide attempts should not be treated.
As my father-in-law used to say when he was an engineer in the NHS.
This hospital would be a great place if it wasn't for the patients.
|
|
