Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
So Brian could be correct in his assertion. Let's face it, when it comes to immigration in this country and what the 'common man' says about it, first he is called a racist for saying it, then he is ignored, then what he has been saying becomes accepted as a self evident truth.
I therefore expect that in a decade or so, the government will release a report showing that immigration did indeed impact negatively on the NHS. 
Hell, we already have local authorities begging for more money to fund the schooling of all the extra non English speaking kids that they've been lumbered with.  |
Which is fine. I am not disputing that immigration, especially large immigration into one area, can impact on local services. I am saying though that when you take the NHS as a whole there isn't a whole lot of evidence the organisation is being hurt by immigration and it might even be a good thing. Even aforementioned local effect is disputed.
Arguing these things on 'common sense' can be a mistake because we need to be able to quantify these things and not go on assumptions. Whilst it seems self-evident that an increasing population puts a strain on the NHS it doesn't have to be the case. It assumes that everyone uses the NHS equally which we don't and it ignores contributions from those immigrants as well as the fact it's staffed by many immigrants too.
What would be interesting is the figures on how many EU migrants retire here or how many go back. I believe in London the time for EU migrants tends to be fleeting, a period of their young adulthood, before they return. I can't find numbers on that though so it's speculation.
Also plenty of what 'the common man' says now will equally turn out to be rubbish too. Too often that term is used to throw out baseless assertions whilst trying to insulate the speaker from criticism back.