[Vampyr]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-May-19, 08:04, said:

May I nominate this for Overstatement Of The Year?

What sort of rental market do you think there would be without buy-to-let?

One that didn't price people out who are desperate to get on the "property ladder". I don't know how in a city with such a severe housing shortage.

The rental market and the sales market are as awful as each other here. London is under so much pressure. Even when house prices decline in the rest of the country they rise in London.

My friend has just bought a flat in a new development. They are building a block now (in the same development) which will be ready in about 4 months, and the increase in price on around £300,000 is ~£50,000 for the same flats.

[WellSpyder]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-19, 08:16, said:

I also think this is a negative side effect of low interest rates. Buy to let can be done with cheap money, and some alternative money making schemes are hampered by the low savings rates offered.

I have no problems with your analysis there. But of course low interest rates would be likely to push up house prices even if there were no buying-to-let taking place at all.

[PeterAlan]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-19, 08:23, said:

One that didn't price people out who are desperate to get on the "property ladder". I don't know how in a city with such a severe housing shortage.

The rental market and the sales market are as awful as each other here. London is under so much pressure. Even when house prices decline in the rest of the country they rise in London.

My friend has just bought a flat in a new development. They are building a block now (in the same development) which will be ready in about 4 months, and the increase in price on around £300,000 is ~£50,000 for the same flats.

Believe it or not, there is more to the UK than London.

A market without buy-to-let is necessarily pretty soon a market without private landlords. Where does that get us?

[Vampyr]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-May-19, 08:27, said:

Believe it or not, there is more to the UK than London.

Yes. And I am sure that efforts are being made to turn other cities into places more people will,want to live and work in. I was going to mention this in my last post, as something that would help, but I didn't want to sound like I was putting down the other cities. This is not my intention.

[PeterAlan]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-19, 08:36, said:

Yes. And I am sure that efforts are being made to turn other cities into places more people will,want to live and work in. I was going to mention this in my last post, as something that would help, but I didn't want to sound like I was putting down the other cities. This is not my intention.

Not just the cities either. I now live in a small market town in the Oxfordshire / Warwickshire border region. There are a couple of identical buy-to-let 2/3-bedroom houses just near me - both will have cost c£200,000. An acquaintance has a small portfolio of 2 buy-to-lets - one in this region, which cost c £120,000, and one in Northampton, c £80,000. Both are providing affordable housing for people who couldn't dream of getting onto the purchase ladder at this point in their lives, and providing a practical investment for my acquaintance. Such properties will be even cheaper in other parts of the UK. These sorts of small scale buy-to-let arrangements are commonplace here. You can see why there are other perspectives.

[Cyberyeti]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-May-19, 08:27, said:

Believe it or not, there is more to the UK than London.

A market without buy-to-let is necessarily pretty soon a market without private landlords. Where does that get us?

Not entirely.

When I was renting my flat in London, the owners bought a place in Spain, retired, and rented out their old home.

When I was living there, I could esily have rented out my home in Norwich, in fact I had a friend living in it paying the bills.

Not every private landlord buys stuff with the intention of renting it out, although many do.

[cherdano]

 NickRW, on 2015-May-19, 04:37, said:

Frankly I don't understand where you are coming from. If the UK immigration policy were anything like as restrictive as that which the U.S. operates, then calling Farage a xenophobe might have some basis in fact.

What does one have to do with the other? Someone who makes up a lie about immigrants coming to the UK in large number in order to get HIV treatment is

• a jerk, and
  
• trying to score political points off xenophobic fears.

Are you telling me he didn't try to pull similar stunts before I started following UK politics?

(And I am not conceding your point about the comparison of UK and US immigration policy, but that's for another time.)

[Vampyr]

 cherdano, on 2015-May-19, 10:22, said:

What does one have to do with the other? Someone who makes up a lie about immigrants coming to the UK in large number in order to get HIV treatment is

• a jerk, and
  
• trying to score political points off xenophobic fears.

Are you telling me he didn't try to pull similar stunts before I started following UK politics?

"Makes up a lie" is putting too fine a point on it. Health tourism is a problem; just not nearly as extensive a one as UKIP would have us believe.

[kenberg]

I remain pleased to see a political thread here that is not focused on the USA. I'm fine with the USA, I just get tired of discussing it.

The details now being addressed are about things where I have no knowledge at all. That's not a complaint, it's just a fact. I expect to keep reading with interest.

[blackshoe]

Fear of HIV is not xenophobia. It's pathophobia. Different thing altogether.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-19, 14:27, said:

"Makes up a lie" is putting too fine a point on it. Health tourism is a problem; just not nearly as extensive a one as UKIP would have us believe.

There is plenty of health tourism, most of it is not HIV related.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-19, 16:00, said:

There is plenty of health tourism, most of it is not HIV related.

I suppose that HIV patients are more expensive to treat than most, since the condition is chronic and the treatment costly. I guess this is what was trying to scare people about.

[NickRW]

 cherdano, on 2015-May-19, 10:22, said:

What does one have to do with the other? Someone who makes up a lie about immigrants coming to the UK in large number in order to get HIV treatment is

• a jerk, and
  
• trying to score political points off xenophobic fears.

Are you telling me he didn't try to pull similar stunts before I started following UK politics?

(And I am not conceding your point about the comparison of UK and US immigration policy, but that's for another time.)

It seems to me you mainly want to make this into a denigrate Farage fest, rather than a debate about anything.

[helene_t]

http://www.theguardi...ent-cost-to-nhs

Uk sends much more health tourists abroad than it receives. But nhs could do a better job in recovering costs from the tourists

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2015-May-20, 10:07, said:

http://www.theguardi...ent-cost-to-nhs

Uk sends much more health tourists abroad than it receives.

So, health tourism may indeed be a problem. But running on an anti-emigration platform (with an 'e') doesn't get you many votes.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2015-May-20, 10:07, said:

http://www.theguardi...ent-cost-to-nhs

Uk sends much more health tourists abroad than it receives. But nhs could do a better job in recovering costs from the tourists

The article, despite the subtitle, doesn't seem to be about health tourists at all, but about actual tourists who become ill while travelling.

[cherdano]

 NickRW, on 2015-May-20, 09:01, said:

It seems to me you mainly want to make this into a denigrate Farage fest, rather than a debate about anything.

LOL. I made a post making four factual arguments, and one off-hand comment about Farage. I mostly got replies about Farage, most of them misstating what I said (including your own post).
Apparently I have struck a nerve with some posters here.

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2015-May-20, 10:07, said:

http://www.theguardi...ent-cost-to-nhs

Uk sends much more health tourists abroad than it receives. But nhs could do a better job in recovering costs from the tourists

This is not health tourism. Health tourism is coming from a country where you would either have to pay for treatment or would get indifferent treatment, then getting treated free on the NHS. Coming over from Africa while 7 months pregnant and saying you're 4 months pregnant to get the birth in the UK for example.

[hrothgar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-20, 13:07, said:

This is not health tourism. Health tourism is coming from a country where you would either have to pay for treatment or would get indifferent treatment, then getting treated free on the NHS. Coming over from Africa while 7 months pregnant and saying you're 4 months pregnant to get the birth in the UK for example.

In the US, the expression is often used to describe situations where US citizens travel to foreign countries for medical treatment.
Typically, the motivation is taking advantage of less expensive medical services.

In general, these cost savings have nothing to do with Health Insurance systems in other country, rather they reflect the deeply dysfunctional nature of the sytsem in the US.

[kenberg]

Quote

In the US, the expression is often used to describe situations where US citizens travel to foreign countries for medical treatment.
Typically, the motivation is taking advantage of less expensive medical services.

Every so often I wonder if I am naive or what? I have known people who have, say, broken a leg in Paris and had it treated there. I don't much keep track of these events but my impression is that they have been pleased. To the best of my knowledge, no one I know has ever intentionally gone abroad for medical treatment. I think I would know, and since it would be a surprise I think I would remember. Of course there have been times when only a half dozen or maybe even fewer doctors or treatment centers in the world can perform a certain action, and then people go to where these places are. I have heard of such things, I have no experience with it.

I don't want to divert the thread to a discussion of American behavior, wise or unwise, proper or improper, but I did want to record the fact that an American going off to London or Paris for the sole purpose of medical treatment is simply outside of my experience. I mean putting a stop to the subsidizing. If people come and pay the actual costs, I suppose no one much minds.

If it is a common practice I would certainly approve of the UK or the EU putting a stop to it. There is no reason people in the EU should be subsidizing our health care.