Letters - July 1, 2019

Should foreign visitors have to pay for treatment on the NHS?
Should foreign visitors have to pay for treatment on the NHS?

Need common sense on this NHS issue

When I visit my family in Cape Town, if I need to see a doctor, I go to the office situated in the waiting room and pay £40 to see a doctor.

If I need any prescription drugs, I pay for those in the same office. End of story.

When my South African grandchildren have been ill in the UK, I have offered to pay for them but have been told there is no charge and I sign a form.

This is truly absurd.

Our doctors cannot cope with existing patients and it takes two weeks for an appointment.

Surely the practice managers can organise an office where people outside the UK can pay a charge to see the doctor and the appropriate charges should be enforced for treatment and operations?

Our NHS will collapse if free health is offered to all.

In America, if you cannot pay, you are not seen.

Every man and his dog will be over to England if free health is given to all.

Quite frankly, we cannot afford it. No other country offers free care.

It is absolutely nothing to do with racism.

When my daughter had her children in South Africa, it cost her about £1,500 per child and she pays for all her healthcare. How can the United Kingdom possibly afford to give free care?

We will be inundated with health tourists.

This must not be allowed to happen.

As the Nigerian lady, whose quintuplets cost the NHS £145,000, said, she would have paid the bill if she had received one.

It is time common sense is applied for this problem.

Janet Berry
Address supplied

Latter-day story of Dr Frankenstein

Once again the electorate is reduced to the role of spectators while a political party nationally changes leader – and Prime Minister – in a desperate attempt to ensure survival.

Naturally much media activity and commentary has focused on the candidates, with the now customary televised debates.

This reduces the process to the equivalent of ‘Take Me Out On a Date’, which makes for entertaining ‘theatre’, allows labelling of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ and enables the national
commentariat to maintain their self-delusion that they are aiding the nation.

The televised hustings are not very illuminating and ignores any exploration of the way in which a future leader selects their special advisers – the small circle of people with the real power behind the throne.

In many instances, a Prime Minister selects courses of action presented by special advisers.

Prime Ministers Cameron and May failed for a variety of reasons, but there was a feature common to both.

They employed well-educated, highly qualified, exceedingly erudite and very successful special advisors who, if truth be told, had limited life experience and were not very special.

I doubt if anyone in Cameron’s or May’s tightly-knit circles had any clue about the price of a tub of butter despite staged photographs of them gazing into the chilled cabinet with a shopping basket in a food store. Special advisers focus intently on success for their leader, yet their failure was assured as they were lacking two crucial facilities: “skin in the game” and wisdom.

Thus they blundered in truly epic style.

The supreme irony is, in the end, the special advisers destroyed their masters.

It’s almost a latter-day version of the story of Dr Frankenstein.

Kevin Hey
via email

Nationalisation will not work

Re: Report from Unison which calls on the state to seize control of the Big Six energy companies. The far left’s aspiration for higher taxes and state control of industry are straight out of socialist Venezuela, and would mean abject misery for families and businesses.

The state seizing control of industry will cost taxpayers billions, with households being forced to hand even more of their hard-earned money to politicians. Across the board, nationalisation of industry didn’t improve living conditions in Venezuela, and there’s no reason to suggest it would in Britain.

John O’Connell
The TaxPayers’ Alliance

Better ways to spend money

The £2.4m makeover of Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex could have been better spent on refurbishing empty properties for the less well off and for homeless ex-service personnel. I wouldn’t expect taxpayers to pay for the upkeep of my property.

Jarvis Browning
Address supplied