Come to Britain illegally: get free kidney dialysis

Telegraph

3 days ago

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) is quite right to reject criticism for picking up illegal immigrants in distress in the Channel. The charity's task for all its 200 years has been to rescue what the hymn calls 'those in peril on the sea', not to ask them where they come from.
Nevertheless, it is an indictment of government policy that the RNLI is saddled with so much of this work. Through no fault of its own, the RNLI helps the people-smugglers maintain a thriving trade, since the traffickers' customers believe, usually correctly, that they will be saved. Repeated failure by either main party to stop the trade has placed an unfair burden on others.
Something similar applies to the National Health Service. The way the law interprets its 'duty of care' means that the illegality of immigrants does not compromise their right to free treatment. Indeed, they can sometimes jump the queues in which British citizens wait. Except in the case of emergency, this seems wrong. It lengthens those queues for ordinary taxpayers and legal immigrants who pay their dues. It also creates an incentive for more illegals to arrive.
I recently came across a striking example of this. Inevitably, this is a subject about which no one in the NHS wants to go on the record, so what follows is anecdotal rather than proved. I can only say that I trust my well-informed sources.
The story is that there have been several recent cases in southern England of illegal immigrants arriving from Middle-Eastern countries and immediately demanding kidney dialysis. The doctor at each migrant centre must refer them to specialist units. The duty of care means that they must be treated at once, regardless of any effect on queues. Free personal translation services are also provided for those who do not speak English.
Obviously, the sick arrivals are not faking it. Almost equally obviously, they knew they would need the dialysis before they set out on their dangerous journey. Theirs is an extreme example of health tourism.
The very fact that they could get here so quickly after dialysis in their home countries (treatment normally requires at least two sessions a week) is evidence that the traffickers have reliable systems worked out and a very high chance of outwitting the British authorities and getting people through fast. No doubt they are extra well-paid for this.
The annual cost of dialysis in Britain is more than £30,000 per patient. Each session lasts three to five hours; bloods also need monitoring, and there are quite frequent complications, so a huge amount of limited clinician and equipment time is consumed by each new patient.
There is no doubt about the good intentions behind the rules, but it does not seem extreme to suggest that they help pave the way to the hell of overcrowding which is the modern NHS.
For the BBC, does a cat have higher moral status than a Jew?
In its morning news yesterday, the BBC revealed what it called 'an international network that shares online videos of cats and kittens being tortured'. This network included British members, it reported. It rightly invited its audience to consider this disgusting.
In the same bulletin, the BBC also reported another torture video. It was of an Israeli man, Evyatar David, held hostage by Hamas. Emaciated and weak, he was filmed in a tunnel, digging what he described as his own grave. He was pleading for his life.
The BBC acknowledged that this film might be distressing for the hostage's family but said nothing about the torturer. Indeed, its news report referred to 'the publication of two videos', without even naming Hamas as the perpetrator.
Instead, it brought on Jeremy Bowen, its international editor. He was clear. Over a year ago, he said, Hamas had offered Israel a deal which said: 'End the war, leave Gaza, don't come back in and you'll get all the hostages back.'
He made not the faintest suggestion that we might be disgusted by Hamas's bargaining over kidnap victims or by the video. Instead, he strongly implied that Benjamin Netanyahu had been wrong to refuse the Hamas offer.
The lesson I learnt from these contrasting reports is that, on the BBC, a cat has a higher moral status than a Jew.
We already have a wealth tax: IHT
There is talk that Labour wants to introduce a wealth tax in the next Budget to help rescue itself from its own profligacy. In the heated discussion about this, it tends to be forgotten that Britain already has a punishing wealth tax, otherwise known as inheritance tax (IHT), which is charged at 40 per cent.
Even less noticed is the fact that IHT is moving from being a tax solely on the pretty well-off to one that hits the middling sort. This is because the threshold at which it kicks in has been held at £325,000 since 2009 and will now continue at that level until at least 2030. If the threshold had increased with inflation, it would be nearly £520,000 today.
Not coincidentally, the number of estates (in effect, the heirs of dead people) paying IHT went up 13 per cent last year. Receipts rose to £2.2bn in the first quarter of this year.
As so often in recent times, what looks like a socialist measure lasted throughout the 14 years of Conservative government which ended last year. As the Tories seem to be in repentant mode at last, should they not catch up with Reform on this issue before it tightens its hold on the rising generation of grandparents?