Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, so 40% of spending goes on people aged over 65: that means 60% goes on people aged 65 or under; I suppose a large chunk of that goes on maternity and young children.

Do you actually have the figures on total healthcare spending on EU migrants to the UK? I don't understand that table of figures - the formatting seems wrong. Even with spending skewed towards older people I would expect that with three times as many foreigners to look after, the UK Health Service still spends more on non-Brit EU citizens than the rest of Europe spends on Brits living there. It may not be three times as much - twice as much perhaps?
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Okay, so 40% of spending goes on people aged over 65: that means 60% goes on people aged 65 or under; I suppose a large chunk of that goes on maternity and young children.

Do you actually have the figures on total healthcare spending on EU migrants to the UK? I don't understand that table of figures - the formatting seems wrong. Even with spending skewed towards older people I would expect that with three times as many foreigners to look after, the UK Health Service still spends more on non-Brit EU citizens than the rest of Europe spends on Brits living there. It may not be three times as much - twice as much perhaps?
Click to expand...

Lots of guessing going on there. :rolleyes:
 
ceptimus said:
Okay, so 40% of spending goes on people aged over 65: that means 60% goes on people aged 65 or under; I suppose a large chunk of that goes on maternity and young children.

Do you actually have the figures on total healthcare spending on EU migrants to the UK? I don't understand that table of figures - the formatting seems wrong. Even with spending skewed towards older people I would expect that with three times as many foreigners to look after, the UK Health Service still spends more on non-Brit EU citizens than the rest of Europe spends on Brits living there. It may not be three times as much - twice as much perhaps?
Click to expand...

On can make some calculations based on the figures given.


The amount of money spent a year by the NHS to the EU in 2016 was to the tune of 670m.

If we have a population of over 65 costing roughly 2/5th of a health budget as in the UK, 2/5 is probably a figure we can apply to other EU countries, then the total spending of 65+ UK residents in the EU (247,000 est) is £268,000,000 – leaving £402,000,000 to treat the remaining 953,000.

The UK spends £13,400,000,000 on health 2/5 attributed to the over 65 – some £3,350,000,000 for 17 million people of which EU nationals over 65 make up 0.5% therefore cost £16,750,000.

Here we see a difference of £268,000,000 - £16,750,000 -i.e. £251,250,000 in the EU’s favour - what it is owed

The rest of the NHS budget (£10,050,000,000) can be divided by the total under 65 population (48,640,000) giving an average price of £207 meaning that under 65 EU residents in the UK cost the NHS £471,104,288.

This means a difference of -£69,104,288 – what the EU owes.

Therefore in total, the value owed to the EU is £182,145,712
 
In March 2016 MP John Mann told Sky News
We're not sending pensioners to Poland, only 30,000 UK citizens are living in Poland.


There are over half a million Poles in this country and yet we are paying four times more to Poland for health care recharges, than they pay to us. The NHS is losing out on huge amounts of money every single week.
Click to expand...


You can read the article here: https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-scandal-as-uk-pays-millions-to-eu-10189381


As usual with the EU, Britain is being ripped off. We're sending huge amounts of money to support Health care in other countries when the money should really be flowing in the opposite direction.
 
ceptimus said:
In March 2016 MP John Mann told Sky News


You can read the article here: https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-scandal-as-uk-pays-millions-to-eu-10189381


As usual with the EU, Britain is being ripped off. We're sending huge amounts of money to support Health care in other countries when the money should really be flowing in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Such as by healthy young EU people coming here to work, paying taxes and contributing to the NHS while, being young and healthy, not having so much call on the NHS?
 
Wudang said:
Such as by healthy young EU people coming here to work, paying taxes and contributing to the NHS while, being young and healthy, not having so much call on the NHS?
Click to expand...

Precisely. They're mostly of working age, as are their dependents, and paying taxes. Brits living abroad have a higher %age of retirees with the attendant increased health care costs, while paying relatively little in taxes.
 
ceptimus said:
Okay, so 40% of spending goes on people aged over 65: that means 60% goes on people aged 65 or under; I suppose a large chunk of that goes on maternity and young children.
Click to expand...

Given that there are 2.9 million EU citizens living in the UK, it's more like:

Age 0-64 x 2,815,000 = 60% of spending
Age 65 and over x 85,000 = 40% of spending

Or, to put it another way, for every million pounds of spending, it averages at £4.71 for every person aged 65 and over, and 21p for every person aged 0-64.

It should be noted that - from the above figures - only 3% of EU citizens living in the UK are aged 65 or over, in contrast to 16% in the UK population as a whole. This confirms what many have been pointing out for some time - that generally speaking EU migrants tend to be younger and far less of a burden on the NHS than the native population.
 
Last edited:
That Sky news article also highlighted another reason for the imbalance:

However, Sky News learned that while the UK does not reclaim A&E expenses for EU citizens - Spain is among countries that do.*
Click to expand...

Meaning that the problem isn't EU rules, its down to the poor decision making of the UK government. I mean wouldn't you think that when they noticed that certain countries were claiming for A&E expenses they might have reciprocated or at the very least sought a discount for not claiming them? Instead they went with their preferred tactic, bitch about EU rules when it's their own lack of action causing an issue. It was the same with paying benefits to migrants, UK government complained about being forced to pay them by EU rules, only for the Germans to introduce precisely the kind of restrictions the UK claimed to want and went to the European Court when the restrictions were challenged and lo and behold:

Top court backs German block on EU migrant benefits

So there was nothing stopping the UK but their own refusal to actually do anything. Seems the Eurosceptics will cheerily waste taxpayer money so long as it gives them an excuse to complain about the EU.
 
Last edited:
May sounding increasingly desperate and panicky....

Theresa May has warned she will not "tolerate" any attempt to block Brexit, after setting out the specific hour the UK will leave the EU.

She said that "11pm GMT on 29 March 2019" is "there in black and white" in an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

The bill will be scrutinised by MPs next week - but the PM warned against attempts to stop it or slow it down.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41936428

IMO strong and confident leaders don't have to say that kind of thing....
 
The Don said:
May sounding increasingly desperate and panicky....

IMO strong and confident leaders don't have to say that kind of thing....
Click to expand...

Not surprising really.

The EU seems to be playing hardball on the negotiations, talking up the downside of no deal, and suggesting that the British government will be willing to agree to pay £50bn to move the discussions forward.

Either May agrees with this, or moves to a 'prepare for no deal' position.

Both options will split the Cabinet, and might lead to another general election. For May success is simply still being Prime Minister in January.
 
but the PM warned against attempts to stop it or slow it down.
Click to expand...

What on earth is she going to do about it if that does happen?
Stomp her feet and complain?
 
Tolls said:
What on earth is she going to do about it if that does happen?
Stomp her feet and complain?
Click to expand...

I guess she could withdraw the whip but that would backfire on her if she wants to get any other legislation passed.

I think the flaw in her reasoning is that she believes that everyone in the country is as completely on board with Brexit as she now appears to be. Instead there are a lot of constituencies where being strongly pro-Brexit will seriously damage your prospects of being elected.

I'm still really worried that there appears to be no set of circumstances in which the government would even consider not going ahead with Brexit and no consequences which would cause them to rethink their course of action. :(
 
The Don said:
I'm still really worried that there appears to be no set of circumstances in which the government would even consider not going ahead with Brexit and no consequences which would cause them to rethink their course of action. :(
Click to expand...

I don't think you're worried enough.

The options are probably going to be:
'No deal' Brexit
A 'deal' which includes paying £50bn and significant EU control over the UK economy
A cancelled Brexit, which includes the UK giving up at least part of the rebate

All are going to be worse than the pre-referendum position, and the UK electorate will be happy to put the blame on the EU (because of course the UK electorate can't be wrong).
 
Aber said:
I don't think you're worried enough.

The options are probably going to be:
'No deal' Brexit
A 'deal' which includes paying £50bn and significant EU control over the UK economy
A cancelled Brexit, which includes the UK giving up at least part of the rebate

All are going to be worse than the pre-referendum position, and the UK electorate will be happy to put the blame on the EU (because of course the UK electorate can't be wrong).
Click to expand...

Oh, I think I'm worried enough, we're already preparing to make the first redundancies because some of our European clients aren't renewing contracts - citing concerns over Brexit.

As far as I can tell, a cancelled Brexit is politically impossible. The two major parties have absolutely nailed their colours to the Brexit mast and don't even have a set of criteria which would cause them to cancel Brexit, much less a process to carry it out. It's a shame because this would IMO be the least worst option.

IMO an attempt to implement a deal which ends up with paying £50bn and significant EU control over the UK economy will destroy the Conservative Party and Theresa May will not do that even if it's the only way to protect the UK economy.

I think that a diamond hard no-deal Brexit is the only politically possible outcome. This will IMO have a devastating impact on the UK both economically and diplomatically. We'll end up with really awful trade deals with the major economies because we'll be so desperate, and they'll know it and our standing in the world will be significantly eroded.

We're looking at years, possibly a decade or two, of economic suffering because no-one will have the political nerve to step back from the precipice. Then again political cowardice from "Call me Dave" got us here in the first place :mad:
 
The Don said:
We're looking at years, possibly a decade or two, of economic suffering because no-one will have the political nerve to step back from the precipice. Then again political cowardice from "Call me Dave" got us here in the first place :mad:
Click to expand...

I'd add a complete lack of pragmatism on the EU side to that list, but I suppose that's not really surprising given what Greece has gone through.
 
Aber said:
I'd add a complete lack of pragmatism on the EU side to that list, but I suppose that's not really surprising given what Greece has gone through.
Click to expand...

Error? Lack of pragmatism on side of EU? That's hilariously wrong. What did you expect? Getting Christmas presents twice a month? Full pardon on your bloody obligations? And all other sorts of sweetest deals of sweetests deals?

If anything, EU is more then tolerant of your idiocy then you deserve. Sorry, but EU is fully pragmatic.

And don't try to use Greece. They were idiots, bankrupt themselves by their own supreme idiocy and fraud. The only non-pragmatic thing EU did with them, was to give them more chances that they deserved...
 
Klimax said:
Error? Lack of pragmatism on side of EU? That's hilariously wrong. What did you expect? Getting Christmas presents twice a month? Full pardon on your bloody obligations? And all other sorts of sweetest deals of sweetests deals?

If anything, EU is more then tolerant of your idiocy then you deserve. Sorry, but EU is fully pragmatic.

And don't try to use Greece. They were idiots, bankrupt themselves by their own supreme idiocy and fraud. The only non-pragmatic thing EU did with them, was to give them more chances that they deserved...
Click to expand...

Well, when the storm broke Greek debt was owned by EU banks. A default would have hurt those very badly (with heavy repercussions in the more arcane markets) so the Troika spun the pain out long enough, by continuing to bail Greece out, for the debt to become owned by the public. So those 'chances' were very 'pragmatic' indeed - in fact carefully calculated - and after that point they didn't really care very much wtf happened to Greece.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom