A vote on hospital ID checks turned into an argument about who the NHS belongs to, and Yes won it comfortably, with one concession from the No side worth noticing.
The most-respected Yes case was a rebuttal of a slogan: “There's this myth that the NHS is free,” one voter wrote, arguing it is paid for through National Insurance and taxes, so those not contributing “should pay as you use it”. Another Yes voter pointed to the 2015 rules and asked why trusts are treating patients who refuse proof, demanding the NHS “find its cojones”. A third, self-described as left-leaning, cited showing a Medicare card in Australia.
The most-respected No case went for principle: universal services rest on “social solidarity, not administrative suspicion”, and healthcare is a right to expand. Others were blunter, calling the idea “compulsory ID by the back door” and saying they did not want a “show us your papers society”.
Yet the sides were closer than the margin suggests. One No voter called charging non-residents “a MUST” and objected only that mandatory ID would hit homeless people, abuse victims and the elderly. A Yes voter, for their part, backed checks only if government issued free ID, with children waived. Another No voter said the NHS should enforce its existing charging rules before adding new checks.
The dispute ran less over whether visitors should pay than over whether a document at the hospital door is the way to find out.
64 Opinions
There's this myth that the NHS is free. No, it's not, it's paid for out of our National Insurance payments & taxes. So, if you're not contributing, you should pay as you use it.
The current situation, where non citizens and non residents are able to claim things which the rest of us have to pay for, is just crackers. It would only be justifiable in a society where money was no object - but that's not the situation we're in
I generally am left leaning but I lived in Australia and everyone who needs non emergency treatment has to show their Medicare card for non paying treatment. I see nothing wrong with it and the NHS is under considerable financial constraints as it is.
If it is a non emergency situation then yes, a quick residency and entitlement check should be carried out to protect our NHS.
It’s a National Health Service - not International. Foreigners need to take out health insurance.
This is where I will differ but be damn specific - yes BUT only for non emergency care, and ONLY if the government issues free id for people. Homeless people have enough issues getting Id at times as it is. And children obviously should be waivered.
So the rule has been there since 2015 but patients are refusing to provide proof of residence and trusts are treating them anyway? So the whole family flies in for 3 months, everyone gets checked out, mum has a baby and they all fly home again? For nothing? No, man. NHS has to find its cojones before it bankrupts us treating the world at our expense.
First save our NHS from becoming anyone's NHS. It's paid for by us and should be for us. (The fact that the NHS shouldn't exist at all and ought to be replaced by some insurance-based system along the lines of Germany is another matter.)
Universal public services are built on social solidarity, not administrative suspicion. Mandating ID checks disproportionately penalizes the most vulnerable and creates systemic barriers to care. Instead of obsessing over borders at the hospital door, we should defend a system that prioritizes human well being. Healthcare is a fundamental right to be expanded, not a restricted privilege.
But. Most will have an NHS number so it’s irrelevant, if not they are likely to be foreign so they should prove eligibility & proof of insurance so they can be charged. It’s a scandal they are not & it is shameful that NHS refuses to do so. They always treat natives with contempt.