http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.

harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.


I saw it try to happen here about 5 yrs ago. An immigrant tried to
jump a surgery queue in the local hospital. Fortunately the surgeon was
French and he knew what the pecking order was, so the immigrant was sent
home with a flea in his ear.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.

Bet that is just another bare faced lie, just like the other
one you posted where some pathological liar lied thru
her teeth about what happened in a kraut hospital.

Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the residential
status of the person though.
Brian

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.


I saw it try to happen here about 5 yrs ago. An immigrant tried to
jump a surgery queue in the local hospital. Fortunately the surgeon was
French and he knew what the pecking order was, so the immigrant was sent
home with a flea in his ear.

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the residential
status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the residential
status of the person though.
Brian


They're already getting priority in social housing in the UK.
So health care could be next.

harry wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater
what the residential status of the person though.

They're already getting priority in social housing in the UK.

Pigs arse they are.

So health care could be next.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

On Friday, 12 February 2016 09:22:08 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater
what the residential status of the person though.

They're already getting priority in social housing in the UK.

Pigs arse they are.

They are, because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family to sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They are, because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family to
sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

You need to get a grip, Dave. There is no reason for any family to sleep
on the street. And I've never seen it. Despite doing voluntary work with
the homeless in this part of London.

Single people may do. Sometimes their choice as they prefer it to a
hostel. And often because hostels won't let drunks etc in.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 20:55:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.

Bet that is just another bare faced lie, just like the other
one you posted where some pathological liar lied thru
her teeth about what happened in a kraut hospital.

Here you are ****-fer-brains.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eur...-idUKKCN0UY0R0

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater
what the residential status of the person though.

They're already getting priority in social housing in the UK.

Pigs arse they are.

They are,

Pigs arse they are.

because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family

They aren't all familys, ****wit.

to sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

Even sillier than you usually manage with homeless FAMILYS.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 20:55:11 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...l-care-Austria

Migrants get priority care over locals.

Bet that is just another bare faced lie, just like the other
one you posted where some pathological liar lied thru
her teeth about what happened in a kraut hospital.

Here you are ****-fer-brains.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eur...-idUKKCN0UY0R0

Nothing to do with that other **** of yours.

On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the residential
status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

SteveW

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

SteveW

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"charles" wrote in message ...

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

SteveW

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

That would be a tad expensive to cover all languages.
Why not use vets for those unable to speak the language? Vets seem to do a
wonderful job with their patients, none of which actually talk any language.

In article , Richard
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message ...

In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3
hours of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required
- and then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if
one is needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the
best use of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local
stuck behind them though.

SteveW

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

That would be a tad expensive to cover all languages. Why not use vets
for those unable to speak the language? Vets seem to do a wonderful job
with their patients, none of which actually talk any language.

Dr Doolitle would disagree

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

Let's hope you never go abroad and require medical services, then.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

I'd have thought you wouldn't need to look far in any major hospital to
find someone who is fluent in any of the common languages?

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/02/2016 12:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

I'd have thought you wouldn't need to look far in any major hospital to
find someone who is fluent in any of the common languages?

Who would be responsible for any mis-interpretations? It is ridiculous
to expect staff who happen to have experience of a non-UK language to be
able to translate at a sufficiently high level. There's plenty of native
English speakers who struggle with some of the language of medicine. And
you need a translator to be competent in both languages involved.

Sure, in an emergency, anyone is likely better than no-one.

--
Rod

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 14/02/2016 12:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

I'd have thought you wouldn't need to look far in any major hospital to
find someone who is fluent in any of the common languages?

Who would be responsible for any mis-interpretations? It is ridiculous
to expect staff who happen to have experience of a non-UK language to be
able to translate at a sufficiently high level. There's plenty of native
English speakers who struggle with some of the language of medicine. And
you need a translator to be competent in both languages involved.

Sure, in an emergency, anyone is likely better than no-one.

Well, yes. If you have to book a freelance interpreter, the patient could
be dead by the time he arrives. And a patient won't necessarily know the
correct medical terms for his symptoms anyway.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

Presumably because it would be much more expensive
to have interpreters for all the languages they need in
every town they have a hospital etc. Much more practical
to have that done the way they have done it, particularly
when they can't just use one of the hospital staff that does
happen to speak that language when the patient doesn't
have a relative who can translate etc.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

I'd have thought you wouldn't need to look far in any major hospital
to find someone who is fluent in any of the common languages?

And most of the patients would have a relo who can speak english too.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2016 12:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

I'd have thought you wouldn't need to look far in any major hospital to
find someone who is fluent in any of the common languages?

Who would be responsible for any mis-interpretations?

No one, just like when a relative is used.

It is ridiculous
to expect staff who happen to have experience of a non-UK language to be
able to translate at a sufficiently high level.

There is no high level involved.

There's plenty of native
English speakers who struggle with some of the language of medicine.

That's why the medical personnel use normal
language to the patients in any language.

And
you need a translator to be competent in both languages involved.

But only in the normal language, not the language of medicine.

Sure, in an emergency, anyone is likely better than no-one.

Not just in an emergency. When asking where it hurts and
whether it hurts when you take a deep breath etc, you don’t
need any language of medicine.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:58:55 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Let's hope you never go abroad and require medical services, then.

The thing is, though, having travelled widely throughout europe, it's
clear the UK is the only country that provides free, on-demand
interpreters for claimants of all sorts. Nowhere else does this; it's
plain lunacy.

On Friday, 12 February 2016 15:33:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They are, because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family to
sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

You need to get a grip, Dave. There is no reason for any family to sleep
on the street.

That's just what I said there above see it.
When the families arrive fropm syrai or elsewhere they will be put up in hotels,
that will not be allowed to sleep on the streets as 'our' homeless at this moment are doing. As families they WILL be a hoigher proirity, as you say there's a reason you don;t see families on the street.
So what will happen to the familes from syria and teh famlies from other countries that comne to the UK ?
Did you work for outreach, they are a disgrace a friend of mine worked for then for a month he was disgusted with them, they weren't there to solve a problem just to keep things in order.






And I've never seen it. Despite doing voluntary work with
the homeless in this part of London.



Single people may do. Sometimes their choice as they prefer it to a
hostel. And often because hostels won't let drunks etc in.

The majority of the reffuges, asylum seekers, ecomonic migrants, immigrants what ever you wish to call them will be in family groups, they WILL get housed FIRST as a priority long before our single homeless people get housed.
They'll even get house before any one else in the UK, mainly because of the kids.

That is what I said originally and that is what is happening, why do you think there are so many small obsure hotels springing up in non tourist areas of london ?

On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:35:22 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

SteveW

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

What foreigners speaking another language in our NHS.
Seems strange that we need to import foreigners into the NHS at ~£150 an hour.
Why aren;t there any jobs at £9

On Sunday, 14 February 2016 11:59:21 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

Let's hope you never go abroad and require medical services, then.

I heard american express amonst others include translators but you have to pay extra for that don't you.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 February 2016 15:33:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They are, because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family to
sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

You need to get a grip, Dave. There is no reason for any family to sleep
on the street.

That's just what I said there above see it.
When the families arrive fropm syrai or elsewhere they will be put up in
hotels, that
will not be allowed to sleep on the streets as 'our' homeless at this
moment are doing.

There are no local FAMILYS sleeping on the streets there.

As families they WILL be a hoigher proirity, as you say
there's a reason you don;t see families on the street.
So what will happen to the familes from syria and teh
famlies from other countries that comne to the UK ?

And with the local familys too.

Did you work for outreach, they are a disgrace a friend of mine
worked for then for a month he was disgusted with them, they
weren't there to solve a problem just to keep things in order.

Easy to claim.

And I've never seen it. Despite doing voluntary work with
the homeless in this part of London.

Single people may do. Sometimes their choice as they prefer it
to a hostel. And often because hostels won't let drunks etc in.

The majority of the reffuges, asylum seekers, ecomonic migrants,
immigrants what ever you wish to call them will be in family groups,

BULL****.

they WILL get housed FIRST as a priority long
before our single homeless people get housed.

And so they should.

They'll even get house before any one
else in the UK, mainly because of the kids.

That's a lie with those in the UK with kids.

That is what I said originally

Nothing like what you said originally.

and that is what is happening, why do you think there are so many
small obsure hotels springing up in non tourist areas of london ?

Those are for all familys, not just non locals.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:35:22 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3
hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

What foreigners speaking another language in our NHS.
Seems strange that we need to import foreigners into the NHS at ~£150 an
hour.
Why aren;t there any jobs at £9

There are plenty, most obviously the cleaners.

On Monday, 15 February 2016 19:37:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 12 February 2016 15:33:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
They are, because there;s no way the authorities will allow a family to
sleep on the street like they do with the homeless in the UK.

You need to get a grip, Dave. There is no reason for any family to sleep
on the street.

That's just what I said there above see it.
When the families arrive fropm syrai or elsewhere they will be put up in
hotels, that
will not be allowed to sleep on the streets as 'our' homeless at this
moment are doing.

There are no local FAMILYS sleeping on the streets there.

I know so where do all the syrian famailes and the refugee familes end up ?
whether it's 10,000 or 20,000 they aren't all single people and we're told that
we have a housing shortage and that there are homless people, but we have homes for 20k people arriving in the UK and we have homes for them just sitting there waiting to be occupied where are these homes ?
We've had DIY SOS building home for a dozon or so 'war hereos' and for every home offered that's one less for the polish or the romainsns or the bulgarians or all the other EU and commonweath citizens are trying to buy or rent.



Did you work for outreach, they are a disgrace a friend of mine
worked for then for a month he was disgusted with them, they
weren't there to solve a problem just to keep things in order.

Easy to claim.

even easier to ignore.


And I've never seen it. Despite doing voluntary work with
the homeless in this part of London.

Single people may do. Sometimes their choice as they prefer it
to a hostel. And often because hostels won't let drunks etc in.

The majority of the reffuges, asylum seekers, ecomonic migrants,
immigrants what ever you wish to call them will be in family groups,

BULL****.

I meant the legal ones ****wit, not those that claim they will be killed if they return home but chose to leave their wife and kids behind.


they WILL get housed FIRST as a priority long
before our single homeless people get housed.

And so they should.

I'd agree but who's paying and where are these houses and rooms coming from ?
the UK isn't like the Tardis.


They'll even get house before any one
else in the UK, mainly because of the kids.

That's a lie with those in the UK with kids.

but those in teh UK havent; got kids most if they have the brains get themselves sorted before having kids.



and that is what is happening, why do you think there are so many
small obsure hotels springing up in non tourist areas of london ?

Those are for all familys, not just non locals.

how will the average syrian family afford such a place.
Here's a local cheapish one.
http://www.commongatehotel.co.uk/

but I still don't see how they can afford it, can you explain it ?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
I know so where do all the syrian famailes and the refugee familes end
up ? whether it's 10,000 or 20,000 they aren't all single people and
we're told that we have a housing shortage and that there are homless
people, but we have homes for 20k people arriving in the UK and we have
homes for them just sitting there waiting to be occupied where are these
homes ? We've had DIY SOS building home for a dozon or so 'war hereos'
and for every home offered that's one less for the polish or the
romainsns or the bulgarians or all the other EU and commonweath citizens
are trying to buy or rent.

In general, single people have always been expected to find their own
accommodation. Bedsit, etc.

Which is the problem with the 'bedroom tax' Very little council
accommodation built for single people or even couples. Most of it for
families. And when the kids leave, the parents end up with a house bigger
than their needs - and might well happily move to somewhere more suitable,
if it existed.

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 14:48:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
I know so where do all the syrian famailes and the refugee familes end
up ? whether it's 10,000 or 20,000 they aren't all single people and
we're told that we have a housing shortage and that there are homless
people, but we have homes for 20k people arriving in the UK and we have
homes for them just sitting there waiting to be occupied where are these
homes ? We've had DIY SOS building home for a dozon or so 'war hereos'
and for every home offered that's one less for the polish or the
romainsns or the bulgarians or all the other EU and commonweath citizens
are trying to buy or rent.

In general, single people have always been expected to find their own
accommodation. Bedsit, etc.

Yes and in the past this has been quite easy to achieve. From 1986 until relatively recently you could view and chose where to live.
Plenty of affordable places on the market.

Now can you actualy find anywhere were you could afford to live
if you were looking for your first bedsit or flat ?



Which is the problem with the 'bedroom tax' Very little council
accommodation built for single people or even couples. Most of it for
families.

Yes and we all know families appear from thin air don't we.

And when the kids leave, the parents end up with a house bigger
than their needs - and might well happily move to somewhere more suitable,
if it existed.

and because there isn't they emigrate in some cases, in others they move to the coast or other areas which of course increases the prices for the locals there.


I'm suprised no ones noticed that the UK population is increasing relatively fast considering we have on average 2.4 kids per couple.