Heartless government to increase IHS from £400 to £625 as part of hostile policy

[Forest2thirds]

Even if it is justified to charge residents on limited leave for the right to use the NHS, they should not be required to pay twice (ie. through IHS and then taxation). At a minimum, there should be some sort of credit equal to the amount of IHS paid which can then be used to offset any income tax, CGT, etc. payable by them.

[THO]

You've missed the point Forrest, the IHS is a payment that goes towards any treatment they may need in the years to come, since the NI that most people pay (possibly in their working lifetime), would be nowhere near enough to cover the cost to treat that patient, if say they got cancer or run over by a car. The extra costs of treating the small percentage of those people who recently arrived to make the UK their home, is rightly shared between those people, and is not then loaded onto those of us who are British.

Why should we (UK tax payers) pay more, so someone else can come to the UK and have very low cost access to NHS? It is not an unfair tax, it is a payment toward the billions of £ it cost to build and run the NHS.

[Daided]

The IHS was introduced in 2015.
The IHS doesn't necessarily go the NHS; it goes to HM Treasury. How that money is used is another story.
Moreover, immigrants have to pay IHS in advance for as many years as their visa application is (so for a 5 year visa is £625 x 5 x number of applicants; Visa fees are on top of that), whether or not they use the NHS.
I think it's quite a smart move to call it IHS, it gives the impression it goes to the NHS, so the average British citizen agrees is justified.

[JB007]

The IHS was introduced in 2015.
The IHS doesn't necessarily go the NHS; it goes to HM Treasury. How that money is used is another story.

No it doesn't. The IHS is held in a fund, which is then claimed from by a hospital who gave the treatment to a person with an IHS, to save their own Trust's budget having to fund that treatment.

The £400 a year IHS did not cover the cost of all the treatment being given to those on an IHS and this is why it will now rise to £625 per year.

In other countries where their healthcare is insurance based, you would have to pay a monthly fee.

[JB007]

I think it's quite a smart move to call it IHS, it gives the impression it goes to the NHS, so the average British citizen agrees is justified.

I doubt that. I would imagine that the average British citizen thinks the IHS fee should have a couple more zeros on the end. But they would rather have the type of immigration systems that other countires have, to protect their healthcare system for their own citizens. Medicals to pass, for those family members not migrating too; and even when a medical is passed, not all visas having access to their full healthcare system and these must buy private insurance too...

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-su ... aminations

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zea ... dical-info

[THO]

Precisely JB. But it is hard to explain to people who think the UK is anti immigration, because like all many other countries we control immigration, that their monthly NI payment taken from their salary does not go anywhere near the amount that they would cost the NHS if they unfortunately needed long term medical treatment that could easily cost £10K's per month, no matter how long they paid something from their salary.

And I wonder what medical treatment I would be able receive if I went to live in Brazil, and became seriously ill or was hit by a bus, and how would it be paid for? Who would cover the cost of the ambulance to come get me?

I actually genuinely do not know the answers to these questions. Does Brazil simply give visa's to people, and then take a small amount each month from their salary for unlimited treatment and medical assistance?

[vinny]

Immigration Health Surcharge increase to £624 delayed.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020 timeline.

[vinny]

Immigration Health Surcharge rises to £624 from 27 October 2020