7-Way Debate Tonight

Nan - a ( so as not to muddy the waters) Syrian refugee ( yes I know, we're hardly letting any in) enters the country legally and is then found to be HiV positive, what does the 6th richest country in the world ( ie us) do? So yes get behind the barricade with that odious excuse for a human being (NF)

Thanks for not shooting me down in flames.

I will explain. Some cancer drugs I believe are to be withdrawn as they are too expensive for the NHS, whilst we are paying for HIV treatment for people who have contributed nothing financially to this country. Of course anyone who has paid their taxes etc. should get free HIV treatment, no question.

With regard to your comment GrannyTwice about a Syrian with HIV, this is a tricky one, but I do feel the people who live and contribute in this country should take priority.

I am not against immigration, I just want the numbers to be reduced. We need foreign workers, especially in the NHS.

I am not a very political person and find it hard to sometimes state my case, but hope the above explains my attitudes.

Sorry Nan - you can't dodge answering by saying its a tricky one - why do you think I constructed it like that? And the clue is in the fact that we are the 6th richest country in the world. Politics isn't about how much we can afford to spend , it's about what we choose to spend it on and how we choose to raise the money we need

NanKate - I think you state your case very well and are to be congratulated on an honest view. Many of us are far too politically correct to say what we actually think and I don't see how that can be a good thing. Well done.

Really before we debate what NF said with regard to HIV sufferers we really ought to check out the facts. We all know that would be politicians often tell porkies or at least a weird version of the truth.

I thought it was a rather bland debate to be honest and contributed nothing more than we already knew about the parties.The Welsh and Scots leaders did well, but of course they are out for as much as possible for their own countries, not England. the Greens leader promised all things for all men and will have put off a lot of people with woolly and naive policies.The men all said the things we thought they would say.I don't think that tv debate adds anything at all to politics and becomes about personalities and how charming/witty/ relaxed they are, which is unimportant.

NanKate the problem is that once those people, with HIV or tuberculosis are here- they constitute a real contagious threat if untreated or hiding underground. By treating them, you can keep a check and also, with TB, limit spreading this dangerous disease.

Just had a quick look at the position re HIV.

Up until 2012 the UK treated any person arriving in the UK with a communicable disease free of charge because of the risk of health to the population - seems sensible. Everything that is except HIV. In 2012 the government accepted the argument that HIV should be included under this banner.

Haven't looked up the total figures. But if we accept the argument that the British population should be protected from such communicable diseases then the numbers are immaterial.

aaaggghhhhh not the PC debate again!! Whitewave- whatever the true figures and NF wouldn't recognise the truth if he found it at the bottom of his beer glass, there is still the point that people come to this country as refugees, asylum seekers and in some cases need medical treatment - HIV, cancer, diabetes without having 'contributed' to the system. My question is what would NanKare and others do about this situation? It's not enough to say it's tricky

Sorry G2 I am not sure of your point. The situation is that WHOEVER enters this country with a communicable disease is treated free of charge, because of the risk to the resident population. I think that that is a sensible position.

Yes - as you can't 'cure' HIV so even with treatment I believe an affected person can still transmit the virus, it's a different argument for treatment - compared with, say TB or Hep C. So there are at least two arguments for treating people - protecting us if they have a communicable disease that is curable and secondly, common humanity ( hollow laugh)

But Nans point seems to be that we should NOT be treating these people freely - I understand we do at the moment. Also that begs the question of treatment for mon- communicable diseases

So are you saying that people should be treated for HIV?

Sorry crossed post. The rules are different for non-commuicable diseases.

Why is not letting a person die from any illness because they are not British being politically correct? perhaps politically correct is the new word for human compassion

Annie - but not the new word,!

TBH - it's the lack of intellectual rigour - or even anything that might bear a passing resemblance to thought that makes me despair. So I ask again , if you think NF is right about not treating people who haven't contributed anything , what would you do with the Syrian refugee? Come on - it can't be that difficult? You mean leave them to die in fear, pain and despair don't you? Oh you don't , you mean........???????

Oh wait - I've just found out the Syrian refugee is pregnant......

If the world that NF and the rest of the far right swivel eyed wish for comes to pass, the following will be apposite 'then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out'

Perhaps the Syrian refugee could be helped if the unborn child's father is British and in employment Grannytwice.

One wonders if there are some who would refuse a glass of water to a thirsty person without proof the person has paid water rates .

I have a houseful of people here.
For what it is worth, the older people[myself included] are only listening with half an ear.
The younger people on the other hand are listening. I presume in part, because they have not heard most of it before.

Thank you NottooOld for your support.

I am not expecting anyone to agree with my views I just want to be able to state them.

Ok GrannyTwice you have asked me not to dodge the question so here goes.

My DinL's mother has terminal cancer and I want her to have every available drug to give her a reasonable life.

If there is £25,000 available to the NHS I want it to go towards the cancer drugs for someone who has contributed in her taxes all her life as opposed to someone who hasn't..

In a perfect world they would BOTH get the treatment they need but choices have to be made.

I suspect my views will not succeed so I don't think you have anything to worry about.

I will not be voting for NF but I want to feel free to say that one or two things he says I agree with but, definitely not all.

Grannytwice it is amazing how few people see the relevance of that poem. To quote another lyric "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"

This article explains why it is is a good idea to offer people with HIV treatment free of charge, and why everyone except Nigel Farage is in favour of it.

The incidence of HIV peaked in 1997 and has been decreasing since then because of the availability of anti-retroviral drugs.
I can't find any statistics for how many HIV+ foreigners come to this country, but this website states there are 6360 new infections in the UK per year.

The cost of treating someone is estimated at £7K per year. If even half of these new infections were due to immigrants arriving with HIV, which seems unlikely, the cost to the NHS would be £22 million.

That sounds a lot, but is peanuts compared to the £1.2 billion the NHS paid out in compensation claims between 2011 and 2012.

I did not watch it - should I now watch it on iPlayer, or is it not worth it?