(UK) Without migrants, we wouldn't have the NHS

#1
C C Offline
https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/without-...e-the-nhs/

EXCERPTS: Our NHS would collapse without migrants.

Almost 20 per cent of the staff in NHS England are from overseas. Out of 1.5 million NHS staff in England, around 265,000 reported a non-British nationality as of June 2023. That’s 45,000 more than the previous year.

What’s more, since Brexit, data indicates that the proportion of EU citizens working for the NHS has declined and tapered off, whilst the proportion of Asian migrants working for the NHS has rapidly increased. Data collated by the House of Commons Library shows that from 2009, the percentage of citizens known to come from EU countries working in the NHS rose strongly, until around the time of the Brexit vote, when their percentages decreased. Then, from around 2016 onwards following the EU referendum, the percentage of NHS staff known to come from Asian countries dramatically increased.

How did this happen? Wasn’t Brexit supposed to reduce the number of migrants? Here’s my interpretation. A key reason given by voters for choosing ‘Leave’ in the referendum was their feeling that we had too many EU migrants here.

[...] The Conservatives’ 2015 manifesto also pledged to bring down annual net migration to the “tens of thousands” [from 172,000 in 2015] and promised to “reduce the incentive for EU migrants to settle in the UK.”

That hardly represented a ringing endorsement of EU membership and how EU migrants here were needed, and mostly in gainful employment in the UK. With relatively low unemployment, high employment and record high unfilled vacancies, this meant that the numbers EU migrants here were at about the right level; maybe not enough, but not too many.

Despite that, Mr Cameron requested from the EU a ‘brake’ on EU migrants, by cutting their in-work benefits. His request was granted, but what wasn’t widely reported is that almost 90 per cent of EU migrants here didn’t even take such benefits.

[...] Instead of being a burden, most EU migrants here were employed and making a significant NET contribution to government coffers. Relatively few were taking benefits.

[...] Labour’s front bench also pandered to the view that the UK had too many EU migrants... Labour did refer to the “common good” provided by migrants and the “contribution” they make to the country... Nor did Labour challenge the unfounded claim that migrants put a strain on public services by pointing out that migrants made a positive net contribution to the cost of public services....

[...] In addition to the Conservatives and Labour stoking fears about immigration, most of the country’s newspapers also inundated the public with a daily deluge against immigrants in the UK (no matter whether they were EU-migrants, non-EU migrants, asylum-seekers or so-called ‘illegal migrants’ – to much of the press, they were all the same.)

[...] So, with anti-immigration sentiments running high and echoed by the British press and the two main parties, Brexit happened.

As a direct result, it’s more difficult for EU citizens to stay or come here; many EU citizens no longer feel welcome here; many have left their employment, in the NHS and other key organisations; many have departed the country. Since Brexit and the pandemic, net migration of EU citizens to the UK has fallen by almost 70% compared to its 2016 peak.

[...] But it’s no big deal, is it, because we didn’t need those EU migrants, did we?

Actually, yes, we did. Who was going to fill those jobs, in the NHS and thousands of companies and organisations across the country, vacated by EU citizens who had made Britain their home?

British workers? Nope. We simply don’t have enough British workers to do all the jobs in Britain. Today, Britain has around 6 million foreign-born workers in gainful employment, and record numbers of unfilled job vacancies. We need migrants, and with a chronic shortage of workers, we actually need more.

[...] So, the Conservative government is quietly issuing visas to hundreds of thousands of migrants from other continents to work here, to help replace those EU citizens who left, and to ease record numbers of unfilled job vacancies following Brexit and the pandemic.

And yet, at the same time, the government is loudly pretending to the British public that we don’t need migrants, that we have too many. The reality is different. The UK economy cannot function without sufficient workers... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
That's why universal healthcare is unsustainable. Since the relatively wealthy westerners won't work for peanuts, you have to import cheaper staff. That in turn inevitably leads to worse care, driving more westerners from the positions, and the downward spiral is off and running.
Reply
#3
stryder Offline
(Jan 6, 2024 12:31 AM)Syne Wrote: That's why universal healthcare is unsustainable. Since the relatively wealthy westerners won't work for peanuts, you have to import cheaper staff. That in turn inevitably leads to worse care, driving more westerners from the positions, and the downward spiral is off and running.
The system would work better if it took into consideration how long a person has gone without having any healthcare. Namely building up credit for not being a burden, up until a point where it's capped. That way if you do need the healthcare in the future its then covered, but then you have to build up the credit again by not using it often.

That of course would then lead to not needing as many nurses and doctors, which would mean they could be paid more while not being a burden through higher taxation etc.

Personally though I tend to avoid the healthcare system entirely, most of those in the medical profession aren't necessarily as skilled as they are claimed and could well be working for a state operator or criminal organisation to obtain peoples data.
Reply
#4
confused2 Offline
The British seem to be very bad at running businesses - by trying to treat the NHS as a business we may be (deliberately?) sowing the seeds of its destruction. Most of the companies receiving UK taxpayer subsidies are already foreign owned (railways, steel etc.).

Discussion of how and why we can't run a business is beyond the scope of this thread.
Reply
#5
Syne Offline
You have to understand and appreciate free market capitalism to be good at business. Seems the biggest sticking point for the UK is the "free" part...in general, not just pertaining to business or healthcare.
Reply
#6
confused2 Offline
I'm not sure what Syne means by 'free' - free to fail?

Quote:Health care spending, both per person and as a share of GDP, continues to be far higher in the United States than in other high-income countries. Yet the U.S. is the only country that doesn’t have universal health coverage.

The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica...ctive-2022

It does seem the US manages rather badly despite spending 15% of GDP on healthcare compared to 8% in the UK.
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, free trade, etc..

For one, the US dwarfs all other high-income Western countries in population and/or geographical area/variety. That leads to a much larger variety of outcomes, with worse outcomes likely to be more numerous and drag down the average. If you make a fairer comparison, between the US and Europe, Europe's life expectancy has also been falling. Unlike Europe, we currently have a very porous and exploited southern border, allowing a huge influx of fentanyl and it's associated deaths.

For another, we don't live in a nanny-state, where you're protected from yourself... through increasing limitations on your aforementioned freedoms. So people here can and do take more risks.

But... we pay our doctors well, can get higher-quality care in a timely manor, and don't have our healthcare rationed by the government. Yes, it does cost more, but that's mainly a result of government subsidies. Just like the government backing student loans leads universities to raise tuition to absorb the influx of available funds, so it is with subsidized healthcare. Kind of the worst of both worlds, because Democrats insist on pushing for universal healthcare in an economy far too large to ever be able to manage it.

But ya'll keep going it for stitches just to find out it ain't "stitches day."
Reply
#8
confused2 Offline
Hips, knees and bumps (a) days is what we need more of.
Reply
#9
Syne Offline
Meh, some people prefer quantity over quality.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Anger at Church helping migrants 'lie' to stay in UK? + Protester convicted (UK) C C 0 377 Feb 14, 2024 12:24 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article London homophobic attack + Migrants treated like animals + UK jets intercept Russians C C 2 487 Aug 15, 2023 09:41 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article (UK) 650,000 appointments axed by NHS strike + UK cracks down on eco group protests C C 0 237 Jul 3, 2023 02:30 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Migrants after Brexit: 'If you don't want me, I don't want you either' C C 1 379 Jun 29, 2023 12:02 AM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  Article (UK) Public satisfaction with NHS hits all-time low, dissatisfaction doubled in 2 yrs C C 0 309 Mar 29, 2023 05:09 AM
Last Post: C C
  Harris tells migrants 'do not come' + The "shooting white people" fantasy at Yale C C 5 738 Jun 8, 2021 07:49 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)