Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 462 of 1552 < 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 >

elgrande bedford 09 Oct 17 4.04am
Originally posted by Jimenez I notice how you have a knack of putting words in peoples mouths? But I'll answer. Probably not 'Null & Void' but very likely heavily Biased. In much the same way that If someone who worked in the Oil industry said global warming didn't exist. Ha ha well spotted. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 09 Oct 17 4.04am

Originally posted by Jimenez

I notice how you have a knack of putting words in peoples mouths? But I'll answer. Probably not 'Null & Void' but very likely heavily Biased.
In much the same way that If someone who worked in the Oil industry said global warming didn't exist.

Ha ha well spotted.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.38am
[Figures quoted from 'Migration Watch'] Immigration means that there are more people for the NHS to care for. In 2013/2014 there were 600,000 new migrant GP registrations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – that’s a new registration every minute. Migrant women have a higher fertility rate than the UK born and therefore place a disproportionate burden on maternity care – more than one in four babies born in England and Wales (27%) in 2015 was to a migrant mother.While migrants might be young when they first arrive they will also inevitably age and go on to place pressure on the NHS just as the existing population does. The government introduced an NHS surcharge of £150 per year in 2015 for students and temporary migrants from outside the EU. By Autumn 2016 this had raised an extra £164 million. However, the NHS has also been criticised by the National Audit Office for inefficiency in collecting debts from non-EEA visitors and also for not being rigorous enough in checking the status of visiting patients from other European countries. In 2014/2015, the UK paid out £674 million to European Economic Area (EEA) countries for the treatment of UK nationals visiting Europe yet received just under £50 million from other European nations in the same year for the treatment of EEA visitors in Britain. The NAO adds that the failure to collect debts for treating visitors will cost the health service more than £200 million in 2017. Some argue that the NHS would collapse without migrant labour. It is true that migrants make up a significant share of the workforce. Research suggests that 26%-35% of doctors and 22% of nurses were born abroad, but no one is advocating restricting doctors or nurses from coming to work in Britain where they are needed. The UK is failing to maintain the supply of UK-trained nurses and doctors. If it did perhaps we would not need to recruit so many doctors from overseas. The OECD finds that in Italy, the percentage of doctors born abroad is 5% while in Germany it is around 11%. There are of course additional moral reasons why the UK should not be taking medical professionals from countries where medical needs are far greater. For example, there are more nurses from Malawi working in London than there are Malawian nurses working in Malawi. The World Health Organisation says that a shortage of seven million doctors worldwide is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. In summary, while migrants undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to the health profession, they also place certain pressures on it. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.38am

[Figures quoted from 'Migration Watch']
Immigration means that there are more people for the NHS to care for. In 2013/2014 there were 600,000 new migrant GP registrations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – that’s a new registration every minute. Migrant women have a higher fertility rate than the UK born and therefore place a disproportionate burden on maternity care – more than one in four babies born in England and Wales (27%) in 2015 was to a migrant mother.While migrants might be young when they first arrive they will also inevitably age and go on to place pressure on the NHS just as the existing population does.

The government introduced an NHS surcharge of £150 per year in 2015 for students and temporary migrants from outside the EU. By Autumn 2016 this had raised an extra £164 million. However, the NHS has also been criticised by the National Audit Office for inefficiency in collecting debts from non-EEA visitors and also for not being rigorous enough in checking the status of visiting patients from other European countries. In 2014/2015, the UK paid out £674 million to European Economic Area (EEA) countries for the treatment of UK nationals visiting Europe yet received just under £50 million from other European nations in the same year for the treatment of EEA visitors in Britain. The NAO adds that the failure to collect debts for treating visitors will cost the health service more than £200 million in 2017.

Some argue that the NHS would collapse without migrant labour. It is true that migrants make up a significant share of the workforce. Research suggests that 26%-35% of doctors and 22% of nurses were born abroad, but no one is advocating restricting doctors or nurses from coming to work in Britain where they are needed.
The UK is failing to maintain the supply of UK-trained nurses and doctors. If it did perhaps we would not need to recruit so many doctors from overseas. The OECD finds that in Italy, the percentage of doctors born abroad is 5% while in Germany it is around 11%. There are of course additional moral reasons why the UK should not be taking medical professionals from countries where medical needs are far greater. For example, there are more nurses from Malawi working in London than there are Malawian nurses working in Malawi. The World Health Organisation says that a shortage of seven million doctors worldwide is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

In summary, while migrants undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to the health profession, they also place certain pressures on it.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 7.48am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 [Figures quoted from 'Migration Watch'] Immigration means that there are more people for the NHS to care for. In 2013/2014 there were 600,000 new migrant GP registrations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – that’s a new registration every minute. Migrant women have a higher fertility rate than the UK born and therefore place a disproportionate burden on maternity care – more than one in four babies born in England and Wales (27%) in 2015 was to a migrant mother.While migrants might be young when they first arrive they will also inevitably age and go on to place pressure on the NHS just as the existing population does. The government introduced an NHS surcharge of £150 per year in 2015 for students and temporary migrants from outside the EU. By Autumn 2016 this had raised an extra £164 million. However, the NHS has also been criticised by the National Audit Office for inefficiency in collecting debts from non-EEA visitors and also for not being rigorous enough in checking the status of visiting patients from other European countries. In 2014/2015, the UK paid out £674 million to European Economic Area (EEA) countries for the treatment of UK nationals visiting Europe yet received just under £50 million from other European nations in the same year for the treatment of EEA visitors in Britain. The NAO adds that the failure to collect debts for treating visitors will cost the health service more than £200 million in 2017. Some argue that the NHS would collapse without migrant labour. It is true that migrants make up a significant share of the workforce. Research suggests that 26%-35% of doctors and 22% of nurses were born abroad, but no one is advocating restricting doctors or nurses from coming to work in Britain where they are needed. The UK is failing to maintain the supply of UK-trained nurses and doctors. If it did perhaps we would not need to recruit so many doctors from overseas. The OECD finds that in Italy, the percentage of doctors born abroad is 5% while in Germany it is around 11%. There are of course additional moral reasons why the UK should not be taking medical professionals from countries where medical needs are far greater. For example, there are more nurses from Malawi working in London than there are Malawian nurses working in Malawi. The World Health Organisation says that a shortage of seven million doctors worldwide is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. In summary, while migrants undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to the health profession, they also place certain pressures on it. Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”. This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work. If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 7.48am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

In summary, while migrants undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to the health profession, they also place certain pressures on it.

Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”.

This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care.

Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work.

If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS.

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.52am
Originally posted by nickgusset Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”. This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work. If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS. So what? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.52am

Originally posted by nickgusset

So what?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

elgrande bedford 09 Oct 17 1.18pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”. This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work. If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS. I think you are missing the point twice there,firstly if they pay tax,then yes they can use the nhs, but it still puts a massive strain on it with 600,000 new arrivals. And secondly going back to what I and others have said. They can afford the lower wages because they house and bill share....jesus it really isn't rocket science. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 09 Oct 17 1.18pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I think you are missing the point twice there,firstly if they pay tax,then yes they can use the nhs, but it still puts a massive strain on it with 600,000 new arrivals.
And secondly going back to what I and others have said.
They can afford the lower wages because they house and bill share....jesus it really isn't rocket science.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 4.48pm
Originally posted by elgrande I think you are missing the point twice there,firstly if they pay tax,then yes they can use the nhs, but it still puts a massive strain on it with 600,000 new arrivals. And secondly going back to what I and others have said. They can afford the lower wages because they house and bill share....jesus it really isn't rocket science. Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 4.48pm

Originally posted by elgrande

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found
On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

Rudi Hedman Caterham 09 Oct 17 4.59pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm) What, indefinitely, in the same job for most of their lives? Maybe they could save up enough to live properly in Poland or Romania. That NHS study in waiting times is rubbish in areas like East London or areas like Lincoln where there's high immigration. Obviously in parts of Surrey and alike it's not the issue, but you cannot say that in areas of high immigration. COYP

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 09 Oct 17 4.59pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

What, indefinitely, in the same job for most of their lives? Maybe they could save up enough to live properly in Poland or Romania.

That NHS study in waiting times is rubbish in areas like East London or areas like Lincoln where there's high immigration. Obviously in parts of Surrey and alike it's not the issue, but you cannot say that in areas of high immigration.

COYP

.TUX. 09 Oct 17 5.16pm
Originally posted by elgrande I think you are missing the point twice there,firstly if they pay tax,then yes they can use the nhs, but it still puts a massive strain on it with 600,000 new arrivals. And secondly going back to what I and others have said. They can afford the lower wages because they house and bill share....jesus it really isn't rocket science. All of this. But Nick'll never get it. Buy Litecoin.

.TUX.

09 Oct 17 5.16pm

Originally posted by elgrande

All of this.
But Nick'll never get it.

Buy Litecoin.

.TUX. 09 Oct 17 5.18pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm) 21st century progress? The 'race to the bottom' is doing just fine without adding insult to misery bud. Buy Litecoin.

.TUX.

09 Oct 17 5.18pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

21st century progress?
The 'race to the bottom' is doing just fine without adding insult to misery bud.

Buy Litecoin.

elgrande bedford 09 Oct 17 5.19pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm) What a f***ing stupid thing to say,so I have a wife and child,and I should house share ..ffs P.s I'm now old and have grand kids,it was a example. Edited by elgrande (09 Oct 2017 5.21pm) always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 09 Oct 17 5.19pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

What a f***ing stupid thing to say,so I have a wife and child,and I should house share ..ffs

P.s I'm now old and have grand kids,it was a example.

Edited by elgrande (09 Oct 2017 5.21pm)

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 5.25pm
Originally posted by elgrande What a f***ing stupid thing to say,so I have a wife and child,and I should house share ..ffs P.s I'm now old and have grand kids,it was a example. Edited by elgrande (09 Oct 2017 5.21pm) Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house? I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 5.25pm

Originally posted by elgrande

What a f***ing stupid thing to say,so I have a wife and child,and I should house share ..ffs

P.s I'm now old and have grand kids,it was a example.

Edited by elgrande (09 Oct 2017 5.21pm)

Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house?

I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook.

elgrande bedford 09 Oct 17 5.32pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house? I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook. But it's not illegal is it,4 or 5 bedroom house at least 10 people in there ..do the maths. And it's not outdated it's different from yours. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 09 Oct 17 5.32pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house?

I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook.

But it's not illegal is it,4 or 5 bedroom house at least 10 people in there ..do the maths.
And it's not outdated it's different from yours.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Oct 17 7.45pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house? I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook. Immigrants ?????? Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Oct 17 7.45pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Who are the landlords allowing so many people to live in one house?
I kind of guessed you were getting on by your outdated political outlook.

Immigrants ??????

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

hedgehog50 Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.58pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm) Is it seriously being suggested that some few days reduction in waiting times is due to a 10% increase in immigrants in an area? Is that it? No other factors could possibly affect waiting times then. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 09 Oct 17 7.58pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

Is it seriously being suggested that some few days reduction in waiting times is due to a 10% increase in immigrants in an area? Is that it? No other factors could possibly affect waiting times then.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Oct 17 8.13pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then. Do you disagree with the Oxford study that found On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm) Only a nut case thinks that an increase in population has no effect on waiting times.

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Oct 17 8.13pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Perhaps more Brits should house and bill share then.

Edited by nickgusset (09 Oct 2017 4.50pm)

Only a nut case thinks that an increase in population has no effect on waiting times.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 10.50pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Only a nut case thinks that an increase in population has no effect on waiting times. Take it up with those that did the study.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 10.50pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Only a nut case thinks that an increase in population has no effect on waiting times.

Take it up with those that did the study.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 10.51pm
Whose court is the ball in at the moment?

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 10.51pm

Whose court is the ball in at the moment?

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 09 Oct 17 11.28pm
Originally posted by Jimenez I notice how you have a knack of putting words in peoples mouths? But I'll answer. Probably not 'Null & Void' but very likely heavily Biased. In much the same way that If someone who worked in the Oil industry said global warming didn't exist. SET AND MATCH !! Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 09 Oct 17 11.28pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

SET AND MATCH !!

Pro USA & Israel

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 11.32pm
Originally posted by Jimenez SET AND MATCH !! Yer not game then.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Oct 17 11.32pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

SET AND MATCH !!

Yer not game then.

Rudi Hedman Caterham 09 Oct 17 11.47pm
Nick, when are you going to volunteer to house share with 19 Romanians (almost came out as romantics) and room share with 4 or 5 Romanians? If it's the way to go and they make it work, when's your turn? COYP

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 09 Oct 17 11.47pm

Nick, when are you going to volunteer to house share with 19 Romanians (almost came out as romantics) and room share with 4 or 5 Romanians? If it's the way to go and they make it work, when's your turn?

COYP

Page 462 of 1552 < 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map